JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri T.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Jitendra Singh Baghel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent No. 1. Smt. Archana Singh appears for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the criteria and the calculation of his marks for shortlisting of the candidates for selections in pursuance of Advertisement No. 36 published by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, Allahabad, for the posts of Principals of Post-Graduate Aided Colleges. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to allow him to participate in the interviews. 3. The interviews were held in the month of June, 2008 and that the results of the selections were declared on 30.6.2008. 4. Smt. Archana Singh has accepted notice on behalf of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission and has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the fact that the petitioner has not amended prayers by challenging the results of the selections, and has not impleaded the selected candidates. The petitioner has not even impleaded the selected candidates even in the representative capacity. 5. Smt. Archana Singh has filed a short counter-affidavit of Dr. D.P. Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary, U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, Allahabad, dated 29.5.2008. She has also filed the counter-affidavit of the same officer to all the paragraphs of the writ petition dated 1.7.2008 and the supplementary counter-affidavit of the same officer on 16.7.2008. 6. The petitioner has filed an application to direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or proposed respondent No. 4 a selected candidate to provide the address of the selected candidates to the petitioner to implead them as respondents. They have further prayed that Dr. Ajai Kumar Rai and Dr. Mohd. Ahmad be impleaded as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 of the writ petition. 7. Before considering the application, we heard the matter for admission. The Advertisement No. 38 alongwith Advertisement No. 39 dated 24.2.2005 published by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission invited applications for the post of Lecturers and Principals respectively. The Advertisement No. 39 invited applications for 69 posts of Principal of P.G. Colleges (Male) and 16 posts of Principal of P.G. Colleges (Female). In Part-B, the advertisement invited applications for 42 posts of Principals of Degree Colleges (Male) and 11 posts of Principal of Degree Colleges (Female). The Advertisement No. 39 invited applications for 69 posts of Principal of P.G. Colleges (Male) and 16 posts of Principal of P.G. Colleges (Female). In Part-B, the advertisement invited applications for 42 posts of Principals of Degree Colleges (Male) and 11 posts of Principal of Degree Colleges (Female). These advertisements were made in pursuance of orders passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 38714 of 2003 and other Petitions No. 41345/2003 and 42992/2003 by which the Advertisement Nos. 33, 34, 35 and 36 were cancelled. In these advertisements, the minimum qualifications and the eligibility was similar as it is laid down in U.P. State Universities Act and the Statutes of the Universities with which these colleges are affiliated. 8. The U.P. Higher Education Service Commission received a large number of applications for the advertised posts and thus in its 788th meeting held on 10.4.2008, it decided to adopt a criteria for shortlisting the candidates in pursuance of Advertisement No. 39 inviting applications for the post of Principals of Post Graduate Colleges. Taking into account the previous decisions, it was resolved vide Resolution No. 788.2 that the marks will be awarded; for (a) educational qualifications and (b) experience. For the educational qualifications, it was resolved to award 10 marks for graduation; 20 for post-graduation and 3 for higher education namely D.Lit/D.S.C. and for experience 15 marks were to be awarded. The Commission resolved to give 8 marks on 15 years teaching experience and 0.50 additional marks for every one year of teaching experience subject to maximum of 15 years. For working as Principal, 02 marks were to be awarded, on first three years experience as Principal, 01 marks and thereafter 0.50 additional marks on every additional one year, subject to maximum of 02 marks. 9. The Commission, in its 791st Extraordinary Meeting dated 13.5.2008, decided vide Resolution No. 791.2 not to send interview letters to 18 candidates (16 male and 2 female), who were retiring in June, 2008. It was also decided that those candidates, who have applied more than once, will be treated to have applied once and to call them for interviews. 9. The Commission, in its 791st Extraordinary Meeting dated 13.5.2008, decided vide Resolution No. 791.2 not to send interview letters to 18 candidates (16 male and 2 female), who were retiring in June, 2008. It was also decided that those candidates, who have applied more than once, will be treated to have applied once and to call them for interviews. Further taking into account that a large number of candidates were retiring in the coming months and the provision of draw 25% of the waiting list, it was resolved that a minimum of 34.9 marks for female candidates and 35.1 marks for male candidates be called for interviews. It was also resolved to start interviews on 2.6.2008. 10. Regulation 6 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission (Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 1983, is quoted as below : “6. Procedure for selection.—(1) The Commission shall scrutinize the applications and call for interview such number of candidates as it may consider proper : Provided that, if on account of excess number of applications or for any other reasons, the Commission considers it desirable to limit the number of candidates to be called for interview, it may— (i) in the case of the post of a teacher, not being the post of principal either hold preliminary screening on the basis of academic record or hold a competitive examination, so however that no competitive examination shall be held before the recruitment year 1983. (ii) in the case of the post of Principal, hold preliminary screening on the basis of academic record, teaching the administrative experience : Provided further that the number of candidates to be called for interview for any category of post shall, as far as possible, between three to eight times the vacancies as the Commission may consider proper. (2) The Commission shall interview the candidates in accordance with the criteria, minimum standards and guidelines set out by it. The Commission may, if it considers necessary, hold practical test also as part of interview. (3) No candidate shall be recommended unless at least one expert concurs with the selection. (4) The Commission shall prepare two separate lists of selected candidates, one of the women candidates only and the other a `general list’ of all the candidates (including women candidates included in the first list). (3) No candidate shall be recommended unless at least one expert concurs with the selection. (4) The Commission shall prepare two separate lists of selected candidates, one of the women candidates only and the other a `general list’ of all the candidates (including women candidates included in the first list). The names of women candidates who specifically opt not to be posted in women’s colleges shall not be included in the list of women candidates. The names of the candidates in the two lists shall be arranged in order to merit and the number of names shall not be more than three times the number of vacancies or the number of vacancies plus four whichever is more.” 11. The petitioner has no grievance with the method of shortlisting adopted by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission. He is aggrieved by the failure of the Commission to count his research experience of two and half years in pursuing Ph.D. degrees. It is submitted that two years and two months of experience of research which conducting research has been ignored in giving marks. On ground No. 2 in the writ petition the petitioner states that the advertisement was published in the year 2003 and the interview was going to be held from June 2008. The teaching experience of the petitioner between 2003 to 2008 was required not to count to call him for interview. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the error in counting marks for his qualifications and the failure to consider his administrative experience. 12. Shri T.P. Singh submits that the petitioner is first class graduate and post graduate and was awarded Ph.D. in 1991 in the subject of Agriculture (Extension). During the research work the petitioner taught graduate and post-graduate classes in Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Naini. He was appointed as adhoc lecturer on 3.4.1991 and continued upto 23.6.1992. His services were regularised by State of U.P. on 23.6.1992. Three students of Ph.D. were enrolled under his guidance. He had worked as paper setter; practical examiner; external examiner for viva-voce for dissertations and Ph.D. in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra; Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, C.S.J.M. University Kanpur, C.S.A. University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhuvaneshwar, Orissa. He has written a Hand Book of agriculture science jointly with some other authors. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra; Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, C.S.J.M. University Kanpur, C.S.A. University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhuvaneshwar, Orissa. He has written a Hand Book of agriculture science jointly with some other authors. His articles and papers have been published in leading journals and that he has participated in summer short school and training course in the subject. He has also organised `national symposium’ and has working experience as member of the Committee of Management; N.S.S. Programme. He was incharge of the Games Committee; Railway Concession Committee and was appointed as Assistant Superintendent of Examinations for K.A. (P.G.) College, Allahabad. He was proctor for two years and was returning officer for the elections of Students Union. He has relied upon several certificates issued by the Registrar of the University and the Principal for doing excellent work. 13. Smt. Archana Singh submits that Ph.D. is the essential qualification for the post of Principal of the P.G. Colleges given in the Statutes of the Universities, and that the working experience of the candidates on the post of Principal alone was counted for the purposes of shortlisting for interview. Regulation 7(i) and (ii) provides that in case of post of Principal, the Commission can hold preliminary screening on the basis of academic record, teaching and administrative experience. The experience in conducting research for the essential qualifications was not required to be counted. Further the petitioner has been given the benefit of teaching experience from 2003-2008. He was given all the eight marks for 15 years teaching experience. After adding the marks obtained in the qualifications and teaching experience, the petitioner secured 34.6 marks, which was less than 35.1 fixed as cut off marks for shortlisting the candidates for interviews. 14. We find substance in the contention of Smt. Archana Singh that as the Ph.D. was essential qualification for the post, any amount of time in conducting research for being awarded Ph.D. degree could not be counted as teaching experience. For awarding marks, every candidate was required to have doctorate. If we accept the contention of the petitioner, the person, who had taken longer time to complete the research work may be awarded higher marks. For awarding marks, every candidate was required to have doctorate. If we accept the contention of the petitioner, the person, who had taken longer time to complete the research work may be awarded higher marks. This could not be done as in such case the benefit could be given to those, who were not as sharp or intelligence as the person, who completed the research for Ph.D. degree in shorter time. 15. So far as awarding marks for Post Graduate qualification is concerned, the petitioner was given 18 marks for 65.75% in Post Graduate qualifications. It is contended by him that 0.75 marks were not counted. Smt. Archana Singh states that it may be a mistake but even if 0.75 marks were to be counted, the fraction of marks of award would not take the total marks upto 35.1, the cut off marks fixed by the Commission. 16. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that some of the applicants were issued more than one interview letters to complete the minimum number of the candidates proposed to be called for interview. He would submit that if only one interview letter was issued to each of the candidate, the petitioner had a chance to be considered. He submits that in such case the cut off marks would have reduced. 17. We do not find that there is sufficient pleadings in this regard in the writ petition. A suggestion has been made in the rejoinder affidavit. The petitioner however has not annexed these interview letters. The petitioner has produced two interview letters sent to Dr. Zarin Nazar. We find that Dr. Zarin Nazar was issued interview letter separately for the advertised posts of Principal, Post Graduate Colleges and Principal, Post Graduate Colleges (Woman). Smt. Archana Singh has explained that these two posts were separately advertised and that a female candidate could have applied for the posts of Principal, P.G. College (Male). We, therefore, do not find any substance in this contention. 18. On the last submission, we find that for the post of Principal the resolution to count the experience of the period, on which the candidates had worked as Principal only, was fair and reasonable method of shortlisting. A person acquires experience in different administrative capacities. There may be many administrative responsibilities entrusted to the person. 18. On the last submission, we find that for the post of Principal the resolution to count the experience of the period, on which the candidates had worked as Principal only, was fair and reasonable method of shortlisting. A person acquires experience in different administrative capacities. There may be many administrative responsibilities entrusted to the person. It would be very difficult for the Commission to have counted such experience for the purpose of shortlisting of the candidates. For example the experience of serving as Returning Officer in Students Union elections, or the experience as manager of a Sports Team or for that matter the experience as a proctor could not be taken into consideration as experience for the post of Principal. The Commission, therefore, took a fair and reasonable decision in awarding marks only for working on the post of Principal. 19. We do not find that the petitioner’s marks were not calculated correctly; and that he was discriminated or given unfair treatment in any manner in shortlisting for the purposes of calling him for interview. The petitioner may, in his own estimation, be a very good candidate. Every candidate is entitled to have the same opinion and confidence. It is, however, for the Commission to adopt a fair and reasonable criteria for shortlisting for calling candidates for interviews. 20. The writ petition is dismissed. ————