Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: September vs Sardar Patel University on 10 September, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:30873 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1823 of 2023 Reserved on: September 1, 2025 Decided on: September 10, 2025 .
______________________________________________________________ Rahul Bhardwaj ... Petitioner Versus Sardar Patel University, Mandi and another .......Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate.
For the respondents Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for r respondent No.1.
Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
____________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner is that respondent No.1-University, while selecting/appointing respondent No.2 against the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) wrongly awarded 10 marks for teaching experience on the strength of experience certificates produced by respondent No.2, since she (respondent No.2) did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor, and she acquired such qualification i.e. M.Phil. in 2008 and as such, her teaching experience for the year 2004-2008 could not be considered and even the ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
-2- 2025:HHC:30873 experience from 2008 to 2009 of teaching in Eternal University could not have been considered, for the reason that said University itself denied the factum of respondent No.2 having worked with it and though, later on another certificate .
has been produced by respondent No.2, from same University, but same carries different dates, coupled with the fact that no B.Sc. or M.Sc. classes were being run in the said University, during said period. Besides this, petitioner has challenged award of '03' marks under heading 'Awards'.
Besides this, allegations have been leveled that husband of respondent No.2, 2 r to who is working in respondent No.1 University, has played a key role in procuring appointment in favour of respondent No.2.
For, having bird's eye view of the matter, facts of the case, which may be relevant for the adjudication of the case at hand are that, Advertisement No. 01/2021, dated 17.8.2021 (Annexure P-1) was issued by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Cluster University, Mandi (A State Government University) for various posts, including four posts of Assistant Professor in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100+6000 AGP in the subject of Zoology i.e. 3-UR, 1-UR(Ex-
SM). The note appended in the advertisement reads as under:
"For minimum qualification, application fee, general instruction for filling online application form and other details see University website https://svpcumandi.ac.in, Eligibility conditions and experience shall be as per the norms prescribed by the UGC Regulations, 2018 and AICTE Regulations 2019. Service conditions and allowances shall be applicable as per rules & regulations of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Cluster University, Mandi. For more information candidates may visit the UGC website www.ugc.ac.in and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Cluster University, Mandi website www.svpcu.ac.in."::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
-3- 2025:HHC:30873
3 Annexure P-2 is the Criteria for shortlisting of candidates for interview
for the post of Assistant Professors in Universities, which is reproduced herein below:
.
S. Academic Record Score
No.
1. Graduation 80% and 60% to less 55% to 45% to
above = than 80% = less less
15 13 than than
60% = 55%
10 =20
2. Post Gradutaion 80% and 60% to less 55% to less
above= 28 than 80% = than 60% =
25 20
3. M.Phil 60% and above = 07 55% to less than 60%
= 05
5. NET with JRF 07
NET or equivalent 5
6.
Research Publications (2 10
marks for each research
publications published in
Peer Reviewed/ UGC listed
Journals)
7. Teaching/ Post Doctoral 10
Experience (2 marks for
one year each)#
UGC API score for Assistant Professor in Universities Note:
(A)(i) M.Phil + Ph.D. Maximum - 30 marks
(ii) JRF?NET/SET Maximum -07 marks (B) Number of candidates to be called for interview shall be decided by the concerned Universities.
(C) Academic Score-80
Research Publications - 10
Teaching Experience- 10
Total :- 100
(D) SET/SLET score shall be valid for appointment in respective State
Universities/ Colleges /Institutions only."
4 The UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of
Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
-4- 2025:HHC:30873 Measures for the maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (hereinafter, 'UGC Regulations 2018') provide for recruitment and qualifications to various posts including post in question i.e. Associate .
Professor, in clauses 3.0 and 4.0, which are relevant for the adjudication of the present petition, are reproduced herein below:
"3.0 Recruitment and Qualifications 3.1 The direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in the Universities and Colleges, and Senior Professor in the Universities, shall be on the basis of merit through an all-India advertisement, followed by selection by a duly-constituted Selection Committee as per the provisions made under these Regulations. These provisions shall be incorporated in the Statutes/Ordinances of the university concerned. The composition of such a committee shall be as specified in these Regulations. 3.2 The minimum qualifications required for the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Senior Professor, Principal, Assistant Librarian, Deputy Librarian, Librarian, Assistant Director of Physical Education and Sports, Deputy Director of Physical Education and Sports and Director of Physical Education and Sports, shall be as specified by the UGC in these Regulations. 3.3 I. The National Eligibility Test (NET) or an accredited test (State Level Eligibility Test SLET/SET) shall remain the minimum eligibility for appointment of Assistant Professor and equivalent positions wherever provided in these Regulations. Further, SLET/SET shall be valid as the minimum eligibility for direct recruitment to Universities/Colleges/Institutions in the respective state only:
Provided that candidates who have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degree) Regulation, 2009, or the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree) Regulation,2016, and their subsequent amendments from time to time, as the case may be, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
-5- 2025:HHC:30873 eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or any equivalent position in any University, College or Institution. Provided further that the award of degree to candidates registered for .
the M.Phil/Ph.D.programme prior to July 11, 2009, shall be governed by the provisions of the then existing Ordinances / Bye-laws / Regulations of the Institutions awarding the degree. All such Ph.D. candidates shall be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions:
a) The Ph.D. degree of the candidate has been awarded in regular mode only;
b) The Ph.D. thesis has been awarded by at least two external examiners;
c) An open Ph.D. viva voce of the candidate has been conducted;
d) The candidate has published two research papers from his/her Ph.D. work out of which at least one is in a refereed journal;
e) The candidate has presented at least two papers, based on his/her Ph.D. work in conferences/seminars sponsored/funded/supported by the UGC/ ICSSR/CSIR or any similar agency.
The fulfilment of these conditions is to be certified by the Registrar or the Dean (Academic Affairs) of the University concerned.
II. The clearing of NET/SLET/SET shall not be required for candidates in such disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET has not been conducted.
3.4 A minimum of 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point-scale, wherever the grading system is followed) at the Master's level shall be the essential qualification for direct recruitment of teachers and other equivalent cadres at any level. I. A relaxation of 5% shall be allowed at the Bachelor's as well as at the Master's level for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Other Backward Classes (OBC)(Non-creamy Layer)/Differentlyabled ((a) Blindness and low vision; (b) Deaf and Hard of Hearing; (c) Locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid-attack victims and muscular dystrophy; (d) Autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness; (e) Multiple disabilities from amongst persons under (a) to (d) ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
-6- 2025:HHC:30873 including deaf-blindness) for the purpose of eligibility and assessing good academic record for direct recruitment. The eligibility marks of 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever the grading system is followed) and the .
relaxation of 5% to the categories mentioned above are permissible, based only on the qualifying marks without including any grace mark procedure. 3.5. A relaxation of 5% shall be provided, (from 55% to 50% of the marks) to the Ph.D. Degree holders who have obtained their Master's Degree prior to19 September, 1991.
3.6 A relevant grade which is regarded as equivalent of 55%, wherever the grading system is followed by a recognized university, at the Master's level shall also be considered valid.
3.7 The Ph.D. Degree shall be a mandatory qualification for appointment and promotion to the post of Professor.
3.8 The Ph.D. Degree shall be a mandatory qualification for appointment and promotion to the post of Associate Professor.
3.9 The Ph.D. Degree shall be a mandatory qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor (Selection Grade/Academic Level 12) in Universities.
3.10 The Ph.D. Degree shall be a mandatory qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor in Universities with effect from 01.07.2021. 3.11 The time taken by candidates to acquire M.Phil. and / or Ph.D. Degree shall not be considered as teaching/ research experience to be claimed for appointment to the teaching positions. Further the period of active service spent on pursuing Research Degree simultaneously with teaching assignment without taking any kind of leave, shall be counted as teaching experience for the purpose of direct recruitment/ promotion. Regular faculty members upto twenty per cent of the total faculty strength (excluding faculty on medical / maternity leave) shall be allowed by their respective institutions to take study leave for pursuing Ph.D. degree. 3.12 Qualifications: No person shall be appointed to the post of University and College teacher, Librarian or Director of Physical Education and Sports, in any university or in any of institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognised under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants commission Act, ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
-7- 2025:HHC:30873 1956 or in an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act if such person does not fulfil the requirements as to the qualifications for the appropriate post as provided in the Schedule 1 of these Regulations.
.
4.0 Direct Recruitment 4.1 For the Disciplines of Arts, Commerce, Humanities, Education, Law, Social Sciences, Sciences, Languages, Library Science, Physical Education, and Journalism & Mass Communication. I. Assistant Professor: Eligibility (A or B) :
A.
i) A Master's degree with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point-scale wherever the grading system is followed) in a concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university.
ii) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC or the CSIR, or a similar test accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET or who are or have been awarded a Ph.
D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 or 2016 and their amendments from time to time as the case may be exempted from NET/SLET/SET :
Provided, the candidates registered for the Ph.D. programme prior to July 11, 2009, shall be governed by the provisions of the then existing Ordinances/Bye-
laws/Regulations of the Institution awarding the degree and such Ph.D. candidates shall be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions:-
a) The Ph.D. degree of the candidate has been awarded in a regular mode;
b) The Ph.D. thesis has been evaluated by at least two external examiners;
c) An open Ph.D. viva voce of the candidate has been conducted;
d) The Candidate has published two research papers from his/her Ph.D. work, out of which at least one is in a refereed journal;::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
-8- 2025:HHC:30873
e) The candidate has presented at least two papers based on his/her Ph.D work in conferences/seminars sponsored/funded/supported by the UGC / ICSSR/ CSIR or any similar agency.
.
The fulfilment of these conditions is to be certified by the Registrar or the Dean (Academic Affairs) of the University concerned. Note: NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET.
OR B. The Ph.D degree has been obtained from a foreign university/institution with a ranking among top 500 in the World University Ranking (at any time) by any one of the following: (i) Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) (ii) the Times Higher Education (THE) or (iii) the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Shanghai).
Note:The Academic score as specified in Appendix II (Table 3A) for Universities, and Appendix II (Table 3B) for Colleges, shall be considered for short-listing of the candidates for interview only, and the selections shall be based only on the performance in the interview."
5 Advertisement initially was issued on 17.8.2021 and later on, corrigendum dated 8.11.2021 was issued. Respondent University, which was earlier known as Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Cluster University, was later on re-
designated as "Sardar Patel University, Mandi" by enactment of Sardar Patel University, Mandi Establishment and Regulation Act, 2021, which came into force with effect from 1.4.2022 and the respondent-University became a State University.
6 Petitioner alongwith respondent No.2, inter alia others, participated in the selection process. On the basis of criteria fixed for shortlisting the ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
-9- 2025:HHC:30873 candidates, petitioner as well as respondent No.2 were shortlisted for interview, which was conducted on 25.6.2022. Following screening committee was constituted by the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University:
.
Sr No. Name & Address Responsibility
1. Prof. Anupama Singh, Convener
Secretary to VC, SVPCU, Mandi
2. Prof. N.K. Tripathi, External Member
Ex-Professor & Dean,
Department of Zoology, University of
Jammu,,
Jammu & Kashmir
3. Prof. Suresh Kapoor, Member
Ex Professor, HPU, Shimla
7 Thereafter, Minutes of Meeting dated 25.6.2022 were published by
respondent-University, wherein Selection Committee consisting of six members, including one Prof. Kuldeep K. Sharma, (Rtd.) Prof. Deptt.. of Zoology, University of Jammu, J&K, after taking into consideration the academic background, domain knowledge, teaching/ research skills and performance in the interview, the score obtained by the candidates in the interview were enclosed as score sheet (Annexure "A") and on the basis of score attained, said Committee recommended following persons for appointment as Assistant Professor in Zoology under un-reserved category on regular basis:
Selected Candidates
1. Dr. Neelam Thakur D/o Sh. Nihal Singh
2. Dr. Gaurav Kapoor S/O Sh. Radhe Shyam Kapoor
3. Dr. Sarita Kumari D/o Sh. Mathura Dass Waiting candidate
1. Dr. Kiran Chauhan D/O Sh. Lt. Col. Dault Singh Chauhan ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
- 10 - 2025:HHC:30873
2. Dr. Rahul Bhardwaj S/O Sh. Gian Chand Sharma 8 Persons mentioned at Sr. No.3 in selected candidates is respondent No.2 herein, who has been selected against the post and petitioner namely .
Rahul Bhardwaj, who has been placed at Sr. No.2 in the waiting panel, is the petitioner. Petitioner is stated to have scored 90.60 API and respondent No.2 as 81.Though the writ petition does not disclose that when petitioner is challenging selection of respondent No.2, who was at Sr. No.3 in the select list, what locus standi he has to file the present writ petition, when he himself has been placed at Sr. No.2 in waiting list. However, in the written arguments submitted on behalf of petitioner, it has been claimed that person at Sr. No.1 in waiting panel, was not inclined to join against the post, hence, it is petitioner, who would succeed, in case selection of respondent No.2 is set aside.
9 Petitioner alleges that the selection of respondent No.2 as Assistant Professor is illegal, on following counts:
(a) Posts were required to be re-advertised since earlier the respondent-
University was Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Cluster University and later on it became a State University namely Sardar Patel University, Mandi, as such, selection process is vitiated.
(b) 10 marks have been wrongly awarded to respondent No.2 for experience and 03 marks have also been wrongly awarded to respondent No.2 against awards
(c) Husband of respondent No.2 is working as Dean, Academic Affairs in the respondent-University, who remained closely associated with the ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
- 11 - 2025:HHC:30873 selection process and not only managed to award marks to respondent No.2 but also manage to include an expert from Jammu University and husband of respondent No.2 has parent cadre in Central University, J & .
K. 10 Petitioner's allegation is that Annexure P-7, which is an experience certificate issued in favour of respondent No.2 for teaching experience from 12.8.2008 to 25.2.2009 from Eternal University, is contrary to Annexure P-8, which is an information supplied by Eternal University, which states that there is no record of respondent No.2 having worked with it for the relevant period. It is averred by petitioner that B.Sc. course (Medical) was started in Eternal University in 2011-12 and M.Sc. (Zoology) in 2016-17 and there is no possibility of respondent No.2 having worked as Assistant Professor (Zoology). It is averred that though an attempt has been made to cover up this fact, by producing Annexure R-2/5, which contains different dates of teaching period. Petitioner alleges that the certificates do not reveal that respondent No.2 was working in the capacity of Assistant Professor.
11 Respondent No.2 in her reply, has controverted the allegation that she has been wrongly awarded 10 marks for experience. She has stated that petitioner has relied upon information obtained under Right to Information Act, 2005 to show that Eternal University denied having any record qua respondent No.2, but same is incorrect. Since in an appeal filed by her before State Information Commission, a direction was passed to Public Information Officer, Eternal University, as a consequence whereof, account statement was placed ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
- 12 - 2025:HHC:30873 on record as also police report regarding destruction of record of University in floods in 2022.
12 Respondent No.1 in its reply has stated that 10 marks for experience .
have been awarded after verifying the documents and there was no involvement of husband of respondent No.2 in the selection process.
13 So far requirement of re-advertisement of posts is concerned, both the respondents have stated that there was no such requirement, since the Sardar Patel University is successor of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Cluster University 14 r to and has inherited all its assets and there is no requirement of issuing a fresh advertisement on respondent-University becoming a State University.
In rejoinder filed by petitioner to reply filed by respondent No.2, it is stated by the petitioner that respondent No.2 claimed experience for the period with effect from 1.1.2004 to 25.2.2009, whereas she did M.Phil. in July, 2008, as such, before completing essential qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor, she could not have gained experience. It is further reiterated that since there were no B.Sc. or M.Sc. classes in Eternal University being run during the period, for which experience is claimed by respondent No.2, she could not have worked as Assistant Professor.
15 At this stage, it would be profitable to take note of Annexure P-14, which is a letter dated April 11, 2024 sent by the Pro Vice Chancellor, Eternal University to one Rupinder Singh, Advocate, which reads as under:
""Subject: Supply of information under Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 This is with reference to the letter dated March 13, 2024, Application for information under RTI Act, 2005 received on March 21, 2024.::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
- 13 - 2025:HHC:30873 The reply for the queries is as under:
1. Regarding the authenticity of the Teaching Certificate issued to Ms. Sarita Kumari D/o Mathra Das (W/o Deepak Pathania), it would be worth addressing the discrepancies in the certificate:
.
i. The certificate indicates that she held the position of "Assistant Professor (Zoology)" at Eternal University from 12-08-2008 to 25-02-2009. It is hereby intimated that the Zoology department itself was established in the year 2015 at Eternal University.
ii. Further it is hereby intimated that the certificate lacks an official stamp of authentication.
iii. Moreover, the position of "Dean Sciences" mentioned on the certificate does not align with the organizational structure of Eternal University. It is hereby informed that no such position existed within the University ever.
2. As regarding the nature of the certificate whether it is fraudulent or not, considering the above-mentioned facts the nature of certificate could be verified.
3. It is stated that the competent authority to issue such Experience certificate lies with the Vice Chancellor/ Pro vice chancellor of the University and it may be delegated to the Registrar/ Additional Registrar as and when required."
16 Though, respondent No.2 has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 26.8.2025, thereby placing on record some documents to show that the name of Dr. N.K. Ralhan, Dean Sciences appears in the list of faculty members but this court is of the view that the same does not address the objections raised by the petitioner that during the period, respondent No.2 claimed to have worked with Eternal University, there were no classes of B.Sc. and M.Sc.
being run and as per Annexure P-14, the power to issue experience certificate lies with Vice Chancellor/ Pro Vice Chancellor of the University and it may be delegated to the Registrar/ Additional Registrar as and when required.
::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS - 14 - 2025:HHC:30873
17 There is another important aspect of the matter; respondent No.2 has
done M.Phil. in 2008 and Ph.D. in 2018. Petitioner was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Medical) in Directorate of Higher Education, on 21.2.2009 .
and regularized on 22.6.2015, which is evident from Annexure P-12, information supplied by Public Information Officer-cum-Deputy Director of Elementary Education. Said information further reveals that no leave was taken by respondent No.2 to pursue Ph.D. Course.
18 Another aspect of the matter is that much stress has been laid by petitioner on 10 marks awarded to respondent No.2 for experience and question has been raised on validity of experience certificate issued by Eternal University in favour of respondent No.2 for the period 12.8.2008 to 25.2.2009 (which date has been mentioned in Annexure R-2/5 as "14.8.2008 to 12.1.2009"), but no challenge has been laid to experience certificates (Annexure P-9) issued by Ramgarhia College for the period 1.1.2004 to 30.7.2006 and Annexure P-10, experience certificate issued by SGGS Khalsa College, Mahilpur for the period 1.8.2006 to 11.8.2008. As per reply filed by respondent No.1, screening committee has taken into consideration experience of respondent No.2 for the period with effect from 1.1.2004 to 30.7.2006 and 1.8.2006 to 11.8.2008 and it is not clear whether marks have been awarded for experience certificate Annexure P-7 or not?
19 However, if the reply filed by respondent No. 1 is seen, same appears to be evasive on above points, whether marks have been awarded for experience in terms of Annexure P-7, and if the said certificate was verified, as ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
- 15 - 2025:HHC:30873 stated in reply, how it was verified. Another important aspect of the matter is that respondent No.2 has been awarded 81 marks for academic record, on the basis of which she has been shortlisted for interview. Though, it is claimed by .
respondent No.1 in its reply that no marks for awards have been given to respondent No.2, but if at this stage, Annexure P-13, the application submitted by respondent No.2 and supplied under Right to Information Act, 2005 showing allotment of marks for academic record are seen, respondent No.2 has been awarded '3' marks for awards i.e. International/National Level (Awards given by International Organisations/ Government of /Government of India recognized National Level Bodies). Relevant portion is reproduced herein below:
India, "Academic Record S.N. Academic Record Score Claimed 1. Graduation 5 2. Post-graduation 23 3. M.Phil. 7 4. Ph.D. 30 5. NET with JRF 0 NET SLET/SET
6. Research Publications (02 arks for each research 10 publications published in Peer-Reviwewed or UGC-listed Journals) 7. Teaching /Post Doctoral Experience 10 8. Awards 3 International/National Level (Awards given by International Organizations/ Government of India/ Government of India recognized National Level Bodies) State-Level (Awards given by State Government) 0 Total 88 81
20 The total marks claimed by respondent No. 2 are 88, but it seems that '7' marks for M.Phil. though claimed, but have not been awarded since as per ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
- 16 - 2025:HHC:30873 evaluation criteria, only 30 marks for M.Phil. and Ph.D. can be granted.
However, if the contention of respondent No.1 is accepted, i.e. qua non-grant of 03 marks for awards, then the total would come to '78' and not '81'.
.
21 Now, coming to another aspect of the matter. As per UGC Regulations 1998, which are claimed to have been relied by respondent No.1, while awarding marks for experiences, the post qua which experience is claimed, should carry UGC scale, the candidate should have possessed the essential qualification, which are required for the advertised post.
22In the case at hand, respondent No.2 is claiming appointment as Assistant Professor and further claiming experience from three institutions as mentioned above, of teaching as Assistant Professor, but essential qualification for the post of Lecturer /Assistant Professor is NET/SET or M.Phil.
or Ph.D., but respondent No.2 has not passed NET/SET and M.Phil. degree was acquired by her in 2008 and Ph.D. thereafter in 2018. In view of above, the experience of respondent No.2 from 2004 till 2008, could not have been counted by the Selection Committee and no marks could have been awarded to her for the same.
23 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to judgment dated 18.12.2024, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 12411-12414 of 2024 titled Allahabad University etc. v. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) & ors.etc. etc. to state that past teaching experience in terms of Regulation 10 of UGC Regulations can be counted, if the candidate ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
- 17 - 2025:HHC:30873 concerned, meets all the conditions of said regulation. Relevant paragraphs of Allahabad University, supra, are reproduced herein below:
"47. Above, we have assigned reasons why the High Court was not justified .
in its approach. Independent thereof, there is one equally weighty reason for allowing the instant appeals. As discussed in M.P. Public Service Commission (supra), a recruiting authority is well-nigh entitled to adopt a method for shortlisting candidates on some rational and reasonable basis when selection is required to be made only on the basis of an interview. In the present case, 'Note' to Reg.4.1 relating to Assistant Professor ordains that after shortlisting of candidates based on academic score specified in Tables 3A and 3B, "the selections shall be based only on the performance in the interview". In course of hearing, we were informed by learned senior counsel for Allahabad University that 69 candidates were shortlisted and called for interview (the cut-
off marks being 87.17), who were competing against each other for appointment on only one unreserved vacancy. Respondent 1 had secured 81 marks and between 87.17 and 81 marks, there were 147 candidates. It is true that these facts and figures are not on record but appointment in furtherance of the advertisement dated 28th September, 2021 having been made, the High Court directed that appointment already made need not be reopened. It is for this reason that we do not disbelieve the instructions provided to learned senior counsel for Allahabad University. However, considering the disproportionate number of applications received in comparison to the number of vacancies available to be filled up, Allahabad University narrowed the zone of consideration by adopting a marking scheme in the way it did with the obvious ultimate objective of permitting candidates with higher teaching experience to enter the zone of consideration. This methodology was perfectly in sync with Regs.4 and 10 read with Table 3A. The Division Bench, therefore, ought not to have been swayed in its decision-making process by reason of teaching experience not being a mandatory eligibility criterion.
48. We are also of the view that the criteria for shortlisting of candidates as engrafted in Tables 3A and 3B were in furtherance of the entire scheme framed by the UGC for appointment on the post of Assistant Professors in universities as well as in colleges. Clause 7 of Tables 3A and 3B, having direct relation with ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
- 18 - 2025:HHC:30873 Reg.10, did not call for any observation from the Division Bench of the High Court of the nature noticed above. An aspirant satisfying the conditions in Reg.10 would be entitled to marks either for teaching experience or post- doctoral experience for which a cap of 10 (ten) marks is imposed. Reg.10, on its .
very terms, makes it clear that rendering of past services is not a sine qua non for direct recruitment. If indeed a candidate has served in the past and answers all the conditions that Reg.10 envisages, read with clause 7 of Tables 3A or 3B, as the case may be, he/she would be entitled to marks for teaching experience. In such circumstances, we hold that the Division Bench completely erred in appreciating the contentious issues in the proper perspective vis-à-vis the law applicable thereto and returned findings which are not only unwarranted but are wholly unacceptable.
49. Finally, we consider it essential to say a few words about the approach adopted by the Division Bench in relation to 'post-doctoral experience', referred to in clause 7 of Tables 3A and 3B. It is plain and clear that respondent 1 did not question the same. In fact, the noun 'anomaly' had not even been referred to by respondent 1 in her writ petition. In the absence of any definition of 'post- doctoral experience' as well as a complete lack of pleadings in regard to such experience earning marks, but assuming that there was good reason for the Division Bench to notice a grey area, either the UGC or the appellants ought to have been asked to clarify. Without seeking any clarification, it was not open to the Division Bench to surmise and conjecture and to be guided to a particular direction based on a 'perceived anomaly' while giving its decision. We are inclined to the view that the Division Bench, in the absence of the requisite pleadings and the ramifications that are closely associated with its decision, ought to have adopted a hands-off approach in this regard."
24 From above law, it is clear that for gaining marks for teaching experience, one has to meet the conditions envisaged in Regulation 10 (or equivalent regulation). In the case at hand, respondent No.2 did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor, nor two of ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
- 19 - 2025:HHC:30873 the certificates show what scale of pay was being paid to her and on what post, she was working.
25 Coming to another question, i.e. experience for teaching in Eternal .
University. Firstly, Eternal University in its reply to an application filed under Right to Information Act, 2005 denied record pertaining to respondent No.2 and raised various queries viz., certificate not having stamp of University, no B.Sc./M.Sc. courses being run during 2008-09 in the University etc. However, later on Annexure R-2/5 has been produced by respondent No.2, but this certificate shows different dates of teaching. Once, respondent No.2 did not possess requisite qualification for appointment as an Assistant Professor, i.e. NET/SET or M.Phil. or Ph.D. and no B.Sc./M.Sc. classes were being run by said University, how she was appointed and which classes were taught by her.
26 Though, allegations have been leveled by the petitioner that husband of respondent No.2 has played some role in procuring appointment of respondent No.2 in respondent No.1 University, but this court does not wish to foray into said allegations, because petitioner has not placed any direct evidence to that effect.
27 In view of the above discussion, this court is compelled to conclude that '3' marks could not have been awarded to respondent No.2 for Awards, which even respondent No.1 has claimed to have not awarded, but Annexure P-13, belies the same and secondly, 10 marks could not have been awarded to respondent No.2 for experience during the years 2004 to 2008, since she did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor.
::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS- 20 - 2025:HHC:30873 Thirdly, experience of respondent No.2 of teaching in Eternal University or Kalgidhar Trust claimed to be under Eternal University is under clout, and this court expresses its surprise that how respondent No.1 has verified the .
experience, when at the first instance Eternal University itself denied having any record of respondent No.2 with it. Though later on it came to be qualified that on account of natural calamity, record of Kalgidhar Trust was destroyed in 2022 (date of occurrence 25.9.2022) and selection process was conducted in June, 2022, then how the Selection Committee of respondent No.1 University verified authenticity of Annexure P-7. There is only bald assertion in the reply filed by respondent No.1 that its Selection Committee has awarded marks for experience, as per clause 4.4.1 of UGC Regulations 1998 and after verifying the documents, but how these documents were verified has not been shown.
28 Though a feeble argument has been raised on behalf of respondents that selection and appointment of respondent No.2 is not on the strength of API score rather, on the basis of performance in the interview, but this court is in agreement with the argument raised by Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that had respondent No.2 not been awarded marks for teaching experience and awards, she would not have been shortlisted and in that event, there was no question of hers being recommended by the Selection Committee.
29 Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, present petition is allowed. Annexure P-4, whereby Selection Committee of respondent No.1 University recommended respondent No.2 at Sr. No.3, for ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS
- 21 - 2025:HHC:30873 appointment as Assistant Professor in Zoology under Un-reserved category on regular basis, is quashed and set aside. As a sequel to above, respondent No.1 is directed to offer appointment to the next candidate in waiting panel.
.
30 The petition stands disposed of in afore terms. All pending applications stand disposed of.
31 Record received from respondent No.1 is ordered to be handed over to Mr. Shyam Singh, advocate, for respondent No.1, under proper receipt.
September 10, 2025
(shankar)
r to (Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2025 21:28:19 :::CIS