Himachal Pradesh High Court
Manoj Joshi vs Dr. Y.S. Parmar University Of ... on 19 August, 2025
( 2025:HHC:27873 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWPOA No.4803 of 2019 Reserved on: 05.08.2025 Decided on: 19th August, 2025 .
Manoj Joshi .......Petitioner
versus
Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry ...Respondent Coram For the petitioner:
r to The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. Mr. Subhash Chander and Mr. Shaswat Dadhwal, Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge The instant petition has been filed for following substantive reliefs:-
"a) The writ in the nature of Certiorari be issued to quash the appointment of Respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P-
11, and to declare it void-ab-initio, unconstitutional against the advertisement issued and violative to article 14 & 16 of the constitution of India.
(b) That the impugned appointment of respondent No. 2 for the post of Assistant Professor (Silviculture, forestry) be quashed and set-aside as made against the advertisement/UGC guidelines, Act and Statutes of the respondent University.
(c) AND writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to direct the respondent University to consider the case of the petitioner for the appointment to the post of Assistant 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS( 2025:HHC:27873 ) 2 Professor in the discipline of Silviculture, being M.Sc (Silviculture, Forestry) and Ph.D (Silviculture, Forestry)."
2. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and .
Forestry, Nauni Solan (for short the 'University') invited applications from the eligible candidates for a number of posts including one post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Silviculture.
3. Petitioner and respondent No.2 applied for the said post of Assistant Professor (Silviculture).
participated in the selection process, however, petitioner r Both remained unsuccessful, whereas, private respondent was selected, hence, this petition.
4. The grievance as raised by the petitioner is that the private respondent did not possess the requisite essential qualification. It is alleged that the Ph.D decree and NET qualification in the concerned subject was essentially required to be possessed, whereas, the Ph.D degree of private respondent was in the subject of Forestry and not in specific subject of Silviculture.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.
6. In the Advertisement No.7 of 2008 dated 06.08.2008, in pursuance to which, the selection process was ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:27873 ) 3 held by the University for the recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (Silviculture), prescribed qualification for the post of Assistant Scientist/Assistant Professor/Assistant .
Extension Specialized or equivalent was as under:-
For the post of Assistant Scientist/Assistant Professor/Assistant Extension Specialist/Equivalent:
(i) Ph.D. Degree in the concerned subject, relaxable to Master's Degree with consistently good academic record i.e. 55% marks at Master's level.
ii) A relaxation of 5% from 55% to 50% of marks at Master's level shall be provided to SC/ST categories.
iii) A relaxation of 5% will be provided from 55% of marks to the Ph.D. degree holders, who have passed their masters degree prior to September, 1991.
iv) Candidates should have qualified National Eligibility Test (in the particular discipline/subject) conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC/ICAR.
(v) B in the 7 point scale with letter grades, O, A, B, C, D, E & F shall be regarded as equivalent to 55% wherever the grading system is followed.
Note: A candidate having Ph.D/M.Phil degree at the time of their recruitment are entitled for four and two (4/2) advance increments, respectively."
7. Noticeably, the Ph. D degree of private respondent is in recognition of his thesis on the subject "Screening and Evaluation of Roots Trainers and Growing Media for raising Pinus Roxburghii Sargent Seedlings". The said degree has been issued by the Forest Research Institute (deemed University with nomenclature Ph. D in "Forestry".
::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS( 2025:HHC:27873 ) 4
8. On the other hand, the Ph. D degree of the petitioner describes it as "Doctor of Philosophy in Forestry (Silviculture).
.
9. The original record of the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor (Silviculture) in the University was requisitioned by this Court and on production, the same was perused on 29.07.2025. Thereafter, the observations made by this Court were recorded vide order dated 29.07.2025 as under:-
"The record has been produced in compliance to order dated 15.07.2025.
I have perused the recommendations of the Screening Committee in original wherein, the Ph.D degree of private respondent Dr. Shailender Kumar has duly been considered as one in the subject of Silviculture. A copy of thesis on the basis of which, the private respondent has been granted Ph.D degree also terms the subject as Forestry (Silviculture).
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a week's time to make his further submissions."
10. A photocopy of the thesis submitted by the private respondent for the degree of Ph. D is also available on the paper book as Annexure R-2/A. ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:27873 ) 5
11. As noticed above, the Selection Committee had considered the degree of Ph.D of private respondent to be one in the stream of Silviculture. It is not the case of the .
petitioner that the Selection Committee did not consist of experts on the subject or had some bias against the petitioner. It being so, this Court cannot have its own opinion on the opinion of the experts, more specifically, when no material has been placed on record by the petitioner to justify his stand.
12. The University has also justified the selection of the private respondent by contending that his Ph.D degree was completely in consonance with the prescribed qualification for the post of Assistant Professor (Silviculture).
13. If a comparison is made between the nomenclature used on the Ph.D degree of the petitioner with that of the nomenclature used on the thesis of the private respondent for the degree of Ph.D, there is no difference and in both the documents, it is mentioned as Forestry (Silviculture).
14. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the above noted thesis was not one which had fetched degree of Ph.D for the private respondent. Thus, the only inference is ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:27873 ) 6 that the private respondent was granted the degree of Ph.D in the Forestry (Silviculture), though, in the degree the nomenclature used is only Forestry.
.
15. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the University has placed on record documents showing the classification of Silviculture and Agroforestry under the norms of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The information reads as under:-
2. Classification of Silviculture & Agroforestry under ICAR:
ICAR's Subject Matter Divisions include:
Forestry and Agroforestry as a major discipline.
Under Forestry, Silviculture, Nursery Management, and Regeneration Techniques are core components.
Root trainer and growing media studies for tree species like Pinus roxburghii are considered part of Nursery and Plantation Technology, which is included under Silviculture.
ICAR also lists these under Forestry and Agroforestry Research Programs:
"Studies on improvement of nursery techniques, root trainer technology, media composition, and establishment of quality planting stock for afforestation purposes."
Source: ICAR Handbook of Agriculture, 6thEdition; ICAR Vision 2050 (Forestry and Agroforestry Division)."
16. Evidently, the source of above information is ICAR Handbook of Agriculture 6th Edition; ICAR Vision 2050 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:27873 ) 7 (Forestry and Agroforestry Division). The petitioner has not been able to rebut the aforesaid information, which clearly reveals that the Silviculture is the core component of forestry .
as a major discipline.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on Clause 12.7.2 of the academic regulations framed by the University to urge that the transcript of academic record of private respondent was not made available from which the details of courses studied and grades secured by him in the Ph. D course could be ascertained. It has been urged that such information would have been helpful in determining the exact discipline or stream forming subject of Ph.D degree. Learned counsel made reference to one such document on record, which is the transcript of academic record of the petitioner.
18. Clause 12.7.2 of the academic regulations reads as under:-
"12.7.2 The transcript of academic record shall contain all the courses studied and the grades secured by the student. A recently taken passport size photograph shall be fixed and embossed in the transcript of academic record."
19. The contention as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my considered view, is not sufficient to ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:27873 ) 8 draw an adverse inference against the private respondent, firstly, for the reason that this Court, in the given circumstances, cannot sit over the opinion of the experts;
.
secondly, the information contained in ICAR Handbook of Agriculture 6th Edition as reproduced above, clearly defines that root trainers and growing media for raising pinus roxburghii sergeant seedlings are considered part of the Nursery and plantation technology, which is included under Silviculture.
20. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Clause 12.18.1 of the academic regulations which deals with the topic of equivalence of the degrees granted by universities other than Dr. Y.S. Parmar University, Nauni and on its basis, it has been contended that the degree of Ph.D of the private respondent was from the Forest Research Institute (deemed University), Dehradun and thus, its equivalence with the Ph.D degree from the respondent-
University could be ascertained only by academic council.
21. Even this contention of the petitioner is mis-
conceived. There was no condition in the advertisement that Ph. D degree of the candidate should be from the respondent-
University only. There was no allegation that the degree of Ph.
::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS( 2025:HHC:27873 ) 9 D granted by the Forest Research Institute (deemed University), Dehradun was not valid for being considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the .
respondent-University.
22. In the light of above discussion, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.
August 19, 2025
(naveen) r to (Satyen Vaidya )
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS