IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 110 of 2010. Decided on: 8.12.2010 National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur and others …. Appellants. Versus Dr.Bharti Gaur and another ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge For the petitioners: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Ashok Thakur, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No.2. Justice V.K. Ahuja,J.: This is a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 22.6.2010, passed in CWP No.2947 of 2009, vide which the learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by respondent No.1 and directed the appellants to declare the result of selection process of two posts of Assistant Professors and also to consider the case of the petitioner for the second post of the Assistant Professor. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No.1 (hereinafter also referred to as the petitioner) filed a petition before this Court alleging that appellant No.1 had advertised two posts of Assistant Professors in the Department of Chemistry in the appellant Institute at Hamirpur and one post of 2 Lecturer in Chemistry. The petitioner applied for the post of the Assistant Professor in Chemistry. She was called for personal interview for selection to the post of Assistant Professor and she appeared in the said interview. It was alleged that the interviews were held on 23.2.2009, but instead of declaring the result of both the posts of the Assistant Professors, the result of only one post was declared and the result for the second post of Assistant Professor was not declared. It was alleged by the petitioner that appellant No.1 has also declared the result of the selection process for the post of Lecturer Chemistry. Therefore, the petitioner had prayed that the appellants/original respondents be directed to declare the result and consider the case of the petitioner against the second post of Assistant Professor. 3. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment directed the original respondents to take steps for declaring the result of the selection process for the post of the Assistant Professor undertaken pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure P- 5) and also to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment against the second post of Assistant Professor. 4. We have gone through the judgment passed by the learned single Judge. The learned Single Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that two posts were advertised but only one was filled and there was no justification for the second post not having been filled up, for which the petitioner was eligible and 3 had also appeared in the interview. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for an interference by this Court and as such the same is upheld. 5. However, in regard to the costs of the petition quantified at Rs.10,000/- imposed upon the appellants, we are of the opinion that the said part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be modified and the same is set aside. During the course of arguments, another prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants was that any adverse remarks made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment may be expunged. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge shows that no specific remarks have been passed by the learned Single Judge against any individual, except the observations that the respondents have not acted bonafidely in the matter, which were made while disposing of the petition. Such remarks shall also stand expunged in so far as they may be used against the appellant or any of its officers and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge to that extent also stands modified. 6. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. ( Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. December 8, 2010 (Justice V.K.Ahuja) (tilak) Judge