2025:HHC:28081 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4955 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ Pankaj Kapoor …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University ….Respondent __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankit Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ankit Chandel, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though despite there being repeated advertisements, required number of applications are not being received by the respondent-University, enabling it to take the selection process to logical end, but yet respondent-University is not resorting to one of the condition contained in parameters for screening /selection i.e. Clause 5 (1) (v), which clearly provides that in case of reserved categories or such subjects where there is an all round paucity of qualified candidates and adequate number of applications are not received, Vice Chancellor may vary the above criteria for calling the interview. Petitioner herein who repeatedly, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering at University of Technology (UIT), Summerhill, but every time, on account 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2025:HHC:28081 of non-receipt of adequate number of applications, his candidature was not considered. Firstly, vide advertisement dated 30.12.2019, respondent-University advertised various posts of teaching faculty including the Assistant Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering, but since adequate number of applications were not received , selection process was abandoned. Again in the year 2020, respondent-University renotifedd the advertisement No. 17/15 with advertisement No. 20/20, which also could not be taken to its logical end for want of adequate number of receipt of applications. Again in the year 2021, advertisement dated 30.1.2022, came to be published in continuation of earlier advertisements No. 17/19 and 20/20, advertising therein various posts at UIT, Summerhill, but fact remains that same was also abandoned for the reason that adequate number of applications were not received. 2. It is worth mentioning that the petitioner herein applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering, pursuant to all the aforesaid three advertisements issued in the year 2019, 2020 and 2021, but in vain. 3. While making this Court peruse advertisement dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure P-1), wherein parameters of screening/selection have been provided, learned counsel for the petitioner states that though for 1 vacancy maximum of 15 candidates are required to be invited for interview, but in the case of reserved category or such subject where -3- 2025:HHC:28081 there is an all round possibility of qualified candidates and adequate number of applications are not being received, Vice Chancellor may vary the afore criteria for calling for interview. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since on last four occasions, adequate number of applications are not being received by the respondents, respondent- University ought to have brought the matter to the notice of Vice Chancellor, enabling him to exercise power under Clause 5 (1) (v) of advertisement detailed herein above. To substantiate his aforesaid claim, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this court to judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 6.9.2021, passed in CWP No. 4512 of 2021 titled as Arun Vatsyayan v. Himachal Pradesh University and Anr., wherein in similar facts and circumstances, direction came to be issued to worthy Vice Chancellor to take decision within 24 hours. Relevant paras of the afore judgment reads as under: “The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: “a. direct the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Law) in the H.P. University, Regional Centre, Dharamshala under un-reserved (Exservicemean) category. b. prohibit the respondents from de-reserving the post of Assistant Professor (Law) under un-reserved (ex-serviceman) category in the H.P. University, Regional Centre, Dharamshala -4- 2025:HHC:28081 pursuance to the advertisements issued by respondent No.1. 2. It is not in dispute that despite repeated advertisements, only one candidate, i.e. the petitioner, has applied under un-reserved (ex-serviceman) category for the post of Assistant Professor (Law) in terms of the policy and programme for appointment of Assistant Professor in the University/Colleges. Clause 4 thereof provides for shortlisting for interview, which reads as under: Candidates shall be invited for an interview in order of merit according to marks obtained by them in the Academic Score Component (Tally sheet) according to the following criteria: (i) for one vacancy maximum of 15 (fifteen) candidates shall be invited. (ii) interviews be held if at least 5(five) eligible applications have been received and 3 (three) shortlisted candidates report for the interview. (iii) for every additional vacancy a maximum of 10(ten) additional eligible candidates be invited. (iv) in case of there being more than one vacancy, interview beheld if at least 7 (seven) eligible applications have been received and at least 5 (five) eligible shortlisted candidates report for interview. (v) only in the case of reserved categories or such subjects where there is an all round paucity of qualified candidates (and adequate number of applications have therefore not been -5- 2025:HHC:28081 received) the Vice Chancellor may vary the above criteria for calling for interview. 3. The matter regarding exercise of power under subclause (v) of clause 4 is stated to be pending before the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University. 4. If that be so, the Vice Chancellor of the respondent- University is directed to take a decision within 24 hours. 5. The instant petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. 6. For compliance, list on 7.9.2021 at 2.00 P.M.” 4. If the conditions noticed in the aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court are read in its entirety, it can be safely concluded that same are parametria same to the conditions as contained in the advertisement notice, which is subject matter of the present case. 5. Since worthy Vice Chancellor enjoys power to vary the condition of minimum number of applications in peculiar facts and circumstances as are present in the present case, this Court sees no reason that why such power should not be exercised by the worthy Vice Chancellor so that petitioner or other similarly situate persons, who though are ready and willing to serve, but are being denied opportunity for the reason that adequate number of applications are not being received by the university, which situation, admittedly, is not in the hands of the petitioner, are not made to suffer, without any fault on their part. -6- 2025:HHC:28081 6. Foreseeing circumstance with regard to non-receipt of adequate number of applications, University Administration itself has provided in advertisement that where adequate number of applications are not received despite there being repeated advertisement, Vice Chancellor, in such a condition, has power to vary the condition of minimum number of applications and as such, provision which is very much available ought to have been invoked by the worthy Vice Chancellor to meet the exigency, but, for no plausible reasons, such power is not being exercised by worthy Vice Chancellor. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed with a direction to the Registrar of the respondent Himachal Pradesh University to place the matter before Worthy Vice Chancellor regarding his power under Sub-Clause 4 of Clause 4 of the advertisement, enabling him to take a decision with regard to same within two weeks. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 13, 2025 manjit