3 of 2010.
32 in respect of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Education in the International Centre for Distance Education and Open Learning, Shimla.
One of the companyditions in the advertisement was that the candidates who have applied earlier as per revised UGC guidelines and also with reference to previous advertisements need number to apply again.
1 and 2 are directed to add to the score sheet of the petitioner five marks on the parameter of publications.
The appellant and the writ petitioner were the applicants for such posts.
Initially, an advertisement No.
four posts 1 for short, University 2 hereinafter referred to as writ petitioner under Unreserved category, one post under Other Backward Classes3 category, one post under Scheduled Castes category and one post in Scheduled Tribes category.
Still aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal.
The appellant was granted three marks for publications in the earlier selection process initiated vide advertisement No.
In case the petitioner then is ranked first, then subject to companypletion of all necessary formalities the respondent companycerned shall proceed to in accordance with law appoint him to the post of Assistant Professor, Education.
However, they may send additional information, if any.
The appellant filed review petition which came to be summarily dismissed on July 30, 2015.
Such publications were before the Search Committee when the writ petitioner was interviewed on May 13, 2012.
3 of 2010.
Such appointment was challenged by the writ petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that he has number been given any credit of publications whereas, for such publications, he has been given credit when he was companysidered in pursuance of the post applied in 3 for short, OBC response to advertisement No.
The marks obtained by the writ petitioner under the heading publications on May 13, 2012 were number before the High Court.
The High Court accepted the claim of the writ petitioner with the following directions The writ petition is accepted and respondents No.
Such publications were also required to be taken into companysideration by the Selection Committee.
This time, advertisement was published for the post of Assistant Professor inviting applications for six posts under Unreserved category, one post under OBC category, one post under Scheduled Castes category and one post under Scheduled Tribes category.
The appellant and the writ petitioner did number apply again number said to have furnished any additional information.
Thereafter, another advertisement No.
The argument of the appellant is two fold.
3 of 2010 was published inviting applications for seven posts of Assistant Professor viz.
In such selection process, the appellant was recommended by the Expert Committee for appointment against the post meant for OBC category, having obtained 60.83 marks.
3 of 2011 was published.
Since the writ petitioner has number sent any publications along with his application form, therefore, he has number been granted any marks under the heading publications.
However, numbere of the candidates were appointed to such posts.
First, it is for the experts to assess the marks for publications.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present appeals is to orders passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla on June 24, 2015 and July 30, 2015 whereby, the Himachal Pradesh University 1 was directed to add five marks on the parameter of publications in favour of the respondent No.
