IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16193 of 2024 Date of Decision: 19.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dr. Sanjay Kumar Narang ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Precisely, grievance of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that Selection Committee wrongly considered his 5th Publication Journal i.e. “Compromised Immunity and Mucormycosis cases in Himachal Pradesh during Covid Pandemic: A Review” in the “Other Category”, rather same was required to be considered in the “International Category”. Since aforesaid journal was considered as “Other Category”, petitioner herein came to be awarded 1.4 marks for the same, as a result thereof, he was unable to find place in the final merit list. Had Selection Committee considered his Publication Journal in “International Category”, he would have got 2.8 marks and secured place in the final merit list. - 2 - 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that on 31.12.2022, respondentNo.2 issued an advertisement inviting therein online applications for recruitment to 25 posts of Principal (College Cadre) in the pay scale of Rs.37300-67000+10,000 (Grade Pay) in the Department of Higher Education. Petitioner, who is otherwise teaching as Associate Professor at Vallabh Government College Mandi also applied for the post of Principal. After screening of documents, petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates was called to give his presentation and interaction with the Selection Committee constituted by respondent No.2. On 29.12.2023, respondent No.2 declared the result, wherein petitioner was unable to find place. He obtained information under RTI from Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, wherein it came to be transpired that aforesaid Journal has been considered in the “Other Category”, as a result thereof, petitioner came to be awarded 1.4 marks. 3. Since, as per the petitioner, aforesaid Journal was in the “International Category”, he submitted a representation dated 1.10.2024, praying therein for revision of marks, however his prayer was not considered on the ground that there is no procedure of re- evaluation. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following reliefs: - 3 - “1. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued for the modification of Annexure P-4 and consequent order of appointment Annexure P-5 appended herewith the Writ Petition. 2. That Writ of Mandamus may kindly be issued to respondent no.2 for the appointment of the Petitioner as Principal (College Cadre) with all consequential benefits seniority from the date of appointment of other incumbents. 3. That writ of Mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent No.2 for deciding the Representation of Petitioner in time bound manner as per the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-commission has filed reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed herein above, have not been disputed. Claim put forth in the petition has been attempted to be refuted on the ground that petitioner’s 5th Publication Journal was not found to be in the “International Category” by the Selection Committee, rather same being an “Indian Journal” was rightly awarded 1.4 marks. 5. It also emerges from the reply filed by the respondents that evaluation of Publication Journals of candidates on the basis of impact factor, as has been provided in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, was not feasible as it was not uniformly available and as such, Selection Committee unanimously formulated its own criteria for awarding marks to the candidates for their research performance based on quality of publication, which reads as under: - 4 - “During the course of evaluation of publications of candidates on the basis of impact Factor it was observed that adhering strictly to the impact factor was not feasible as it was not uniformally available. The Selection Committee unanimously decided to adopt the following criteria for awarding marks to the candidates for their research performance based on quality of publication. (1) The maximum marks per paper/chapter shall be =4 (II) In case of single author =4X1=4 (III) If candidate is first author =4X.7-2.8 (IV) If candidate is 2nd author =4X.3-1.2 It was also decided that in order to have quality assessment of their research publications the following multiplying factor shall apply on the above arrived score of the candidates. (a) If the publication is in Internationally recognised and established Journals X 1.0 (b) If the Publication is in Nationally recognised and established Journals X 0.8 (c) For all other publications X 0.5 6. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-commission while justifying the impugned action of the commission argued that marks qua the Journal have been awarded by the expert committee, comprising of three subject experts and there is no role, if any, of other members of the Selection Committee. He further submitted that otherwise also, information given by the expert Committee cannot be substituted until there is some apparent /glaring mistake. He further submitted that whether Journal is in the “International Category” is a question to be decided by the expert committee, which in its wisdom has found aforesaid Journal to be - 5 - falling in “Other Category” and as such, rightly awarded 1.4 marks qua the same. 7. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court, Mr. Vikrant Thakur, also made available record with regard to selection, especially merit list as well as evaluation done by the Expert Committee of the Journals, perusal whereof reveals that Committee of three experts evaluated the Journals submitted by various candidates and awarded marks as per scheme reproduced herein above. 8. Though this Court sees no reason to differ with the afore submission of Mr. Thakur that opinion given by the Expert Committee cannot be substituted until same was blatantly wrong on the face of it, however, having carefully perused evaluation done by the Expert Committee, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner that Committee while considering aforesaid Journal under the “Other Category” has failed to assign reasons. He submitted that once afore Journal was claimed to be an “International Journal”, Expert Committee ought to have assigned reasons for not considering the same to be in the “International Category”. He submitted that mere reading of aforesaid Journal clearly suggests that same is in “International Category” as it stands published in International Journal. He further submitted that evaluation, if any, done by the Expert Committee qua 5th Journal, which is subject matter of the case itself suggests that Expert - 6 - Committee had not taken into consideration the aforesaid Journal, rather it proceeded to grant/award marks on the basis of Journal having No. ISSN 2262-2268, whereas Journal named “Compromised Immunity and Mucormycosis cases in Himachal Pradesh during COVID Pandemic” has been assigned No. ISSN 2278-4357 by Work Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 9. Having perused record vis-à-vis Journal claimed to be international, there appears to be merit in the afore contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. At this stage, Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent-commission fairly stated that since representation filed by the petitioner praying therein for re- evaluation of result is pending adjudication before the Commission coupled with the facts and observations recorded by this Court in the instant order, direction can be issued to the Commission to decide the pending representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner, by associating fresh Expert Committee with direction to consider that whether 5th Journal, which is subject matter of the present case, is “international Journal” or falls under “other categories”. 10. In view of the fair stand adopted by Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel, as well as for the reasons and discussions made herein above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-commission to consider pending representation having been filed by the petitioner after constituting fresh committee of - 7 - experts, which may be specifically called upon to give their opinion with regard to nature of 5th Journal “whether it is “international journal” or falls under “Other Category”. Needless to say, commission while constituting committee shall specifically call upon the expert committee to assign reasons for their findings/conclusion. Needful in terms of instant order shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. November 19, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge