( 2026:HHC:20629-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4894 of 2022 Reserved on:19.05.2026 Decided on: 29.05.2026 Dr. Radhika Thakur …. Petitioner. -Versus- Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur and another …..Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. ________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Ridhima Karol, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(A) That the order of the Screening Committee communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 02.02.2022 (Annexure P-10) declaring her ineligible 1 Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. ( 2026:HHC:20629-DB ) for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (Mathematics) may be quashed and set aside. (B) That the petitioner may be declared to be eligible for Assistant Professor (Mathematics). (C ) That the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Assistant Professor (Mathematics) in the respondent University may be quashed and set aside thereby setting aside the entire selection process. (D) That the respondent University may be directed to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Mathematics) afresh.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that she is a Graduate in Mathematics from Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla in 1st Division. Thereafter, she did her M.Sc. (Mathematics) with specialization in Industrial Mathematics from Central University of Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala in 1st Division. This was followed by Ph.D. in Statistics from Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry, Nauni, Solan in 1st Division. According to the petitioner, vide Annexure P-5, i.e., Advertisement No. 01 of 2021, circulated on 09.03.2021, the respondent-University advertised certain posts, including the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Mathematics. The post was meant for unreserved category. The eligibility criteria for the post, in terms of Annexure P-5 was as under:- 3. ( 2026:HHC:20629-DB ) “Post at Sr. No. 9 (Basic Sciences faculty) i) Good academic record as defined by the concerned University with at least 55 marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master’s Degree level in a relevant 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, CSIR, ICAR or similar test accredited by the UGC. iii) Notwithstanding anything contained in i) and ii) above, candidates who are, or have been awarded a Ph. D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph. D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 or subsequent regulations if notified by the UGC, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET. Provided that NET essentiality for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor and equivalent in the disciplines in which NET is conducted, for the candidates registered for Ph. D prior to July 11,2009 shall be exempted subject to the conditions that: 4. ( 2026:HHC:20629-DB ) a) Ph. D degree of the candidate awarded in regular mode only; b) Evaluation of the Ph. D thesis by at least two external examiners; c) Open Ph.D viva-voce of the candidate had been conducted; d) Candidate has published two research papers from his/her Ph. D. work out of which at least one must be in referred Journal; e) Candidate has made at least two presentations in conference/seminars, based on his/her Ph.D work. a) to e) as above are to be certified by the Vice Chancellor/concerned Deans. iv) NET shall also not be required for such Master’s Degree Programmes in disciplines for which NET is not conducted. A relaxation of 5% may be provided, from 55% to 50% of the marks to the Ph. D. degree holders, who have passed their Master’s degree prior to 19th September, 1991. Relevant grade which is regarded as equivalent of 55% wherever the grading system is followed by a recognized University shall also be considered eligible.” 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of Annexure P-10, which is the information gained by her under the Right to Information Act, the Screening Committee, which screened the 5. ( 2026:HHC:20629-DB ) candidature of the candidates, who had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Mathematics), rejected her candidature on the ground that she was Postgraduate in Mathematics, but without NET/SET and she was not having Ph. D. in the relevant subject, i.e., Mathematics, as per Advertisement. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by the Screening Committee is per se bad in law. He referred to the Advertisement Annexure P-5 and submitted that in terms of said Advertisement, the candidate, aspirant for the post of Assistant Professor (Mathematics) was to possess the Master’s Degree in the “relevant subject”, which the petitioner was possessing. He further submitted that a candidate, who had Master’s Degree in the relevant subject was also required to have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET). Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that a candidate who had been awarded a Ph. D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph. D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 or subsequent regulations, if notified by the UGC, was exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the present case, the petitioner, after doing M.Sc. (Mathematics), got admission in Statistics, 6. ( 2026:HHC:20629-DB ) on the strength of said qualification. He further submitted that whereas in terms of the Advertisement, Master’s Degree was required in the “relevant subject”, there was no such condition under the Clause relating to Ph. D. Degree. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Ph. D. Degree was required to be awarded in accordance with University Grants Commission Regulations, 2009, which the petitioner was possessing. He also submitted that it is not as if the Ph. D. Degree awarded to the petitioner was totally alien to the subject of Mathematics. Learned Senior Counsel by referring to Annexure P-7, which is Notification dated 18th July, 2018, issued by the University Grants Commission on minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges submitted that in terms of these Regulations also, a candidate who had 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, was exempted from qualifying the NET. Learned Senior Counsel referred to Annexure P-8, which is Notification dated 5th May, 2016, issued by the University Grants Commission and submitted that this Notification, which was dealing with the Eligibility Criteria for admission to Ph. D. Programme, inter alia, provided that a candidate was eligible to apply for Ph. D. 7. ( 2026:HHC:20629-DB ) Programme, provided the candidate was having Master’s Degree, satisfying the criteria stipulated under Clause-2 of the said Regulations, i.e., 55% marks and the petitioner was fulfilling said criteria in the present case. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in terms of the Prospectus, issued by the Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticultural and Forestry, Nauni, Solan, H.P. for the year 2013-14, copy whereof was appended with the reply filed by respondent No. 1 as Annexure R-III and submitted that a perusal thereof would demonstrate that for admission in Ph. D. (Statistics), M.Sc. (Mathematics) was a valid qualification. By referring to Annexure P-4, learned Senior Counsel submitted that various Institutions, wherein, the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Professor on the strength of qualification possessed by her, considered her as eligible candidate and so was the case of others also, as was evident from documents appended with the petition. Learned Senior Counsel thus submitted that in the present case, as the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner was arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law, the petition be allowed in terms of the prayer clause. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in case the impugned act of the respondents is not set aside, then it would result in a very precarious situation for the petitioner, wherein, now she has been rendered ineligible to be appointed against the post of 8. ( 2026:HHC:20629-DB ) Assistant Professor on the ground that her Ph. D. was not in the subject of Mathematics and against the post of Assistant Professor (Statistical), on the ground that her post-graduation was not in the said subject. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the University as well as learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent submitted that in terms of the Advertisement, it was clear that only such candidate was eligible to apply for the post, who was having a post-graduation degree in the “relevant subject”, as also Ph. D. in the “relevant subject”. It was argued on their behalf that as Ph. D. Degree is also offered in the subject of Mathematics, nothing prevented the petitioner from obtaining Ph. D. Degree in the subject of Mathematics and, thus, the candidature of the petitioner was rightly rejected on the said ground by the University. It was argued on their behalf that the contents of the Advertisement have to be read in a prudent manner and because the eligibility criteria was post-graduation in the “relevant subject”, obviously, the candidate was to have the Ph. D. Degree also in the concerned subject, to seek exemption of passing NET test. Learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent also cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zubair P. Vs. State of Kerala and other, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 203. 9. ( 2026:HHC:20629-DB ) 6. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by the Screening Committee was otherwise also not sustainable in the eyes of law, because it was the Vice Chancellor of the University concerned, who had the discretion to accept or reject the candidature of the candidate, but in the present case, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner, without placing the same before the Vice Chancellor, was also bad in law. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as the documents on record. 8. At the very outset, this Court would like to make an observation and the same is that this Court is not going to adjudicate the issue as to whether Ph. D. in Statistics is equivalent to a degree of Ph. D. in Mathematics or not. All that this Court is going to adjudicate in this case is whether in the light of the contents of the Advertisement, the candidature of the petitioner could have rejected by the Screening Committee on the grounds which are mentioned in Annexure P-10 or not. For this, this Court shall be again referring to the Advertisement itself, relevant portion whereof has been quoted by me hereinabove also. In terms of Advertisement Annexure P-5, the educational qualification, which was to be possessed by a candidate, was good 10. ( 2026:HHC:20629-DB ) academic record with at least 55 % marks at the Master’s Degree level in the “relevant subject” from an Indian University etc. and the candidate must have cleared NET conducted by the UGC, CSIR, ICAR etc. Thereafter, there was an exemption with regard to the clearing of NET, in terms whereof, notwithstanding the abovementioned conditions, the candidates who were awarded a Ph. D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph. D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, or subsequent Regulations, if notified by the UGC, were exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET. Now, incidentally, whereas in Clause-(i) of Advertisement, which deals with Post at Sr. No. 9, i.e., Basic Sciences Faculty, it was categorically mentioned that Master’s Degree was to be in the “relevant subject”. The words “relevant subject” were conspicuously missing when it came to the issue of possessing a Ph. D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2009. Had the intent of the University been that besides the Master’s Degree in the “relevant subject”, the Ph. D. Degree should have also been issued in the “relevant subject”, then nothing prevented the University from stating so in the Advertisement. When the University was careful in mentioning “relevant subject” against the requirement of Master’s Degree, in the 11. ( 2026:HHC:20629-DB ) absence of these words finding mention against Ph. D. Degree, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner in terms of Annexure P-10 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. This Court is making this observation for the reason that a perusal of Annexure P-10 demonstrates that in terms of meeting of the Screening Committee held on 09.06.2021, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that though she was possessing Ph. D. Degree in Mathematics, but the same was without NET and she was not Ph. D. in the “relevant subject” (i.e., Mathematics), as per Advertisement. In the considered view of this Court, the reasons which have been given by the Screening Committee in holding that the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the post in question are bad in law. There was no requirement in the Advertisement that the candidate was to possess Ph. D. Degree in the “relevant subject”. It is not understood as to from where these words have been imported by the Screening Committee while holding that the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the post in question. The language of the Advertisement had to be construed as it was and when Ph. D. in the relevant subject was not mentioned in the Advertisement, the Screening Committee could not have had rejected the candidature of the petitioner on this count. Though at the outset, this Court has made an observation that in 12. ( 2026:HHC:20629-DB ) the course of adjudication of this petition, it is not going to adjudicate as to whether the Ph. D. Degree in the subject of Mathematics is equivalent to that of Ph. D. Degree in Statistics, but it is pertinent to observe that the petitioner was granted admission in the Ph. D. Course in Statistics on the strength of a qualification, i.e., M.Sc. Degree in Mathematics. As far as the judgment being relied upon by learned counsel for the private respondent is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the same may not have any applicability in the facts of the present case, because, therein the issue was with regard to appointment of a Higher Secondary School Teacher in the subject of ‘Economics’, for which, one of the conditions was passing of SET qualification and the candidate therein though had passed SET qualification, but the same was in the subject of ‘Malayalam’. It is in this backdrop that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the concerned candidate was required to pass SET in the concerned subject. Obviously, as there is no co-relation in the subject of Economics and Malayalam, it is for this reason that Hon’ble Supreme Court did not treat the passing of SET in Malayalam valid for appointment against the post of HSST (Economics). 9. Accordingly, in the light of above discussion, this petition is allowed. The act of the respondent-University of holding the petitioner 13. ( 2026:HHC:20629-DB ) to be ineligible for the post of Assistant Professor (Mathematics), in the peculiar facts of this case, is held to be bad in law and the decision of the Screening Committee, dated 09.06.2021, to this effect, is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held eligible to participate in the selection, so undertaken by the University for the post of Assistant Professor (Mathematics) in the light of the contents of the Advertisement, and the respondent-University is directed to take further action in this regard and in case the petitioner is found eligible, consequences to ensue. However, in the light of the fact that the post in issue stands occupied by the private respondent, he shall not be disturbed and the petitioner will only be adjusted against the existing vacant/future post and, that too, prospectively as from the date of passing of this judgment. Petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 29, 2026 (bhupender)