IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C. Review No.5 of 2009 Decided on : May 27, 2009 Dr. Y.S. Parmar University …Petitioner. Versus Dr. T.R. Sharma and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Per Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Through the present Review Petition, review of our order, dated 24th December, 2008, is sought, whereby we allowed CWP No.1146 of 2004, filed by respondent T.R. Sharma and directed the petitioner to consider the case of respondent T.R. Sharma for promotion to the post of Professor/equivalent, under Career Advancement Scheme. 3. Respondent T.R. Sharma was working as Associate Professor with the petitioner-University for quite some time, when in 2002 he applied for promotion to the post of Professor/equivalent, under Career Advancement Scheme. His application was rejected by the Screening Committee, on the grounds that (1) he had not attended Refresher Courses of 3-4 weeks duration, and (2) he had not submitted reprints of publications. Before rejection of his application, he was intimated that he had not submitted reprints of publications and had not attended Refresher Courses of 3-4 weeks duration. He responded to that communication and Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2 supplied copies of publications, through his Controlling Officer (Associate Director). 4. We concluded, by reference to the provisions of Rules 3(iii)(b)(d), 3(i)(d) and 5(iii)(B)(c), that it was not the requirement of Rules that a candidate should have attended Refresher Courses of 3-4 weeks duration, as the duration of the Course was not mentioned in clause (d) of Rule 3(iii). As regards the requirement of submission of reprints of publications, we concluded that submission of reprints of publications was not the requirement of Rule 3(iii), which prescribes the eligibility criteria, though Rule 5(iii)(B)(c), which pertained to the procedure to be followed by the Merit Assessment Committee, does speak of assessment of merit by reference to the publications. We also concluded that though the reprints were not, initially, submitted with the application, but the respondent did submit them subsequently, when called upon to do so, vide letter dated 23rd October, 2002, Annexure R-5. 5. The only point, which has now been raised in the Review Petition, is that the respondent, having not published any research work, during the relevant period, was not eligible. As already noticed, we dealt with this aspect of the matter and even concluded that the respondent did submit reprints of research publications, when called upon to do so, vide letter dated 23rd October, 2002. In view of the abovestated position, we see no merit in the present petition for review. Hence, the same is dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J. May 27, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.