IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 266 of 2011. Decided on: December 20, 2011. Pawan Kumar Thakur son of Shri K.R.Thakur, resident of Trikuta Sadan Opposite old RTO Subathu Road, Saproon, Tehsil & Distt. Solan, H.P. ……….Appellant. Versus 1. Dr. Y.S.Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh through its Registrar. 2. Shri Jia Lal son of Shri Jagar Ram, C/o Deepak Enterprises, near Old LIC Building, the Mall Road, Solan, H.P. 3. Shri Gandev son of late Shri Thakur Singh, O/O NBPGR Phagli, Shimla- 171004. 4. Shri Vinod Kumar son of Shri Ishwar Dutt, Village Ghareech PO Kufri, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. For the appellant: Mr. Tarun Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petitioner is the appellant. The writ petition was filed with certain grievances regarding selection to the post of Field Assistant in the respondent-University. The allegations were mainly with regard to the mode of selection. The learned Single Judge, having seen the records and referring to the award of marks has rightly held that the award of marks in the interview would depend on the performance of each candidate in the interview and that the marks allotted in the interview are not dis-proportionate to the written test. It was noted that only 25 marks have been allocated for interview out of the total 100 2 marks. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is certainly a plausible view and therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, we issued direction to the University to see whether the posts are lying vacant. The learned standing counsel has informed the Court through an affidavit dated 6th December, 2011, that there are 3 posts lying vacant. But, it is pointed out that the waiting list has already expired on 28.6.2010. It is further pointed out that there is no sanction from the State Government to fill up the posts and rather the State Government has imposed ban in filling up the vacant posts. Even assuming that there is no ban also, the petitioner is second in the waiting list and only one post will go to the general category of the three. In that view of the matter, the appellant will not be the beneficiary. For all the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. December 20, 2011, ( Justice Dev Darshan Sud), (karan/vs) Judge.