JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief’s: “1. a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record of the case and quash the order dated 20-9-2016 passed by the respondent No. 1 contained in annexure 1 to the writ petition and consequently quash the appointment of the respondent No. 5 on the post of Assistant Professor in Education. 2. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the respondent University to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor in Education in the University in accordance with law.” 2. The third respondent, namely, the Uttarakhand Open University issued Annexure No. 2 advertisement dated 08.05.2013 calling for applications from qualified persons in regard to the posts of Assistant Professors in Education. One post was for General and another was reserved for the Uttarakhand Women. The last date fixed for the application was 10.06.2013. The petitioner, the fourth respondent and the fifth respondent applied. The fourth respondent, it appears, after selection, came to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor, Education (open category). The fifth respondent came to be selected for the post of Assistant Professor, Education (Uttarakhand Women). Petitioner was before this Court earlier and petitioner was relegated to approach the Chancellor i.e. the first respondent. The representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected vide Annexure No. 1 and, hence, the petitioner has approached this Court again. 3. We heard Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Navin Tewari and Mr. Sunil Upadhyaya, Advocates for the petitioner, Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Alok Mahra and Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocates for respondent no. 5. 4. The recruitment procedure has been detailed in Annexure No. 2 advertisement. Therein, it is mentioned under the head “Educational Qualifications”-as per UGC, State Govt. and NCTE, Govt. of India norms. Thereafter, the procedure is mentioned as follows: “Recruitment Procedure 1. Determination of vacancy:-Any post duly sanctioned by the State Government will be the basis for determination of vacancy, provided it has not been filled. 2. Advertisement of Vacancy:-All vacant posts will be advertised on the basis of Reservation Roaster which will be mentioned in the advertisement. 3. Education qualifications:-As per UGC, State Govt. and NCTE, Govt. of India norms. 4. Determination of vacancy:-Any post duly sanctioned by the State Government will be the basis for determination of vacancy, provided it has not been filled. 2. Advertisement of Vacancy:-All vacant posts will be advertised on the basis of Reservation Roaster which will be mentioned in the advertisement. 3. Education qualifications:-As per UGC, State Govt. and NCTE, Govt. of India norms. 4. Format of Application:-All candidates will have to apply on the prescribed application form and will have to pay the prescribed application form fee. 5. Screening of Applications:-All applications will be screened by a committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor having at least one subject expert either from amongst the teachers of the University or from outside the University. 6. Rejection of Applications:-Applications not fulfilling the requisite qualifications will be rejected by the Screening Committee. 7. Distribution of marks:-The distribution of marks for screening the applications for different the posts will be as under:- Assistant Professor:- a. Educational Qualifications (30%):- Graduation 5% Post Graduation 5% NET/SLET 6% M.Phil. 5% Ph.D 9% b. Research work (20%):- i. Having worked as Research Associate in University State/ National Projects -5% ii. Publication of research papers (15%)-one research paper-4%, 2-3 research papers 12% and 4 or more than 4 research papers-15% c. Seminar/Workshop/Symposium/FDP/MDP/Refresher Course etc:-10% N.B: (1) Marks for ‘b’ and ‘c’ above shall be awarded by the Screening Committee. (2) Copies of research papers/publications must be submitted, else no marks shall be awarded in the said category. d. Demo Lecture-20% Marks decided by screening committee. e. Interview-20%” 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also drew our attention to the following note at page no. 88, which reads as follows: ^^fo’ks"k fVIi.kh% dsoy mUgha 'kks/k&i=ksa dks bl x.kuk esa lfEefyr fd;k tk;sxk tks lanfHkZr (Referred) tuZYl vFkok izfrf"Br tuZYl esa izdkf'kr gksaA tuZYl ds Lrj dk vkadyu lcaf/kr foHkkx dh Screening Committee ds }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA Articles, Book Reviews rFkk Study Material dks Hkh Screening Committee, ftlesa dqyifr }kjk ukfer nks okg~; fo'k"kK Hkh gkasxs] ds }kjk mi;qDr weightage fn;k tk;sxkA ;fn 'kks/k&i= la;qDr ys[ku esa gSa] rks izkIr vadks dks rn~uq:i foHkkftr dj fn;k tk;sxkA** 6. Next, he would point out that the fifth respondent has one publication of a research paper, which was done on 07.06.2013 (see page 66 of the paper book). 7. He drew our attention to page no. Next, he would point out that the fifth respondent has one publication of a research paper, which was done on 07.06.2013 (see page 66 of the paper book). 7. He drew our attention to page no. 71 to point out that another publication of the fifth respondent is made after the last date. He points out that it is published after the last date (we notice at the top of the page October 2013 March 2014). 8. He drew our attention to Annexure No. 4, which is the application for the post in question by the fourth respondent and there, under column no. 12, it is pointed out that the respondent no. 4 has given number of research papers as 02 + 1. Lastly, he draws our attention to page no. 75 of the writ petition. He points out that another publication for which marks has been given to the fifth respondent is done in September, 2013. 9. He points out that the petitioner secured 15 marks for publication; whereas; the fifth respondent has been given 12 marks. Out of 80 marks, the petitioner secured 57.06 marks; whereas, the fifth respondent secured 51.39 marks. He further contends that the petitioner was given only 05 marks, out of 20 in the interview; whereas, the fifth respondent secured 11 marks. 10. In other words, the fifth respondent was given 12 marks on the basis that she has published three research papers in terms of the norms, which we have referred to already. Thus, but for the fact that the fifth respondent has been given 12 marks for the alleged three publications, the petitioner would have been selected. It is to be noted that, from Annexure No. 10 summary sheet of the marks obtained by the candidates, the fourth respondent was placed at position no. 1 and she has been appointed against the post of Assistant Professor (General). The fifth respondent is shown at second position and the petitioner was shown at the third position. Therefore, if the marks allotted to the fifth respondent are established as erroneous, quite naturally, the petitioner would get the right to be appointed. 11. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would draw our attention to the counter affidavit filed on her behalf, wherein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows: “11. Therefore, if the marks allotted to the fifth respondent are established as erroneous, quite naturally, the petitioner would get the right to be appointed. 11. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would draw our attention to the counter affidavit filed on her behalf, wherein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows: “11. That the contents of para 17 of the writ petition as stated are erroneous, hence denied. According to the UGC Regulation 2009 for award of Ph.D. degree notified on 01.06.2009, acceptance of research paper by a referred journal for publication is sufficient and is as good as publication. Regulation 16 thereof is extracted below: “16. Ph.D. candidates shall publish one research paper in a referred Journal before the submission of the thesis/monograph for adjudication, and produce evidence for the same in the form of acceptance letter or the reprint.” The contention that deponent is not entitled to benefit of research papers published after the date of submission of application is not sustainable in view of UGC Regulations. Two research papers of deponent were accepted for publication in the month of May, 2013 and one research paper was accepted for publication on 02.06.2013. On 03.10.2013, yet another research paper was accepted for publication. Needless to mention here that acceptance letters were issued to deponent by Referred Research Journals. In this connection, true copy of acceptance letters dated 14-05-2013, 27-05-2013, 02-06-2013 and 03-10-2013 are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA-1, CA2, CA-3 and CA-4 to this affidavit. Thus deponent was having three research papers which were published/accepted for publication before the last date of submission of application (i.e. 10-06-2013). The second advertisement was issued on 22-11-2013 in which last date indicated was 23-12-2013 and deponent responded to the said advertisement also. Before 23-12-2013, deponent was having 3 published research papers to her credit and one research paper was accepted for publication but she was given marks only for three research papers.” 12. Therefore, it is the case of the respondents that insofar as one research paper is concerned, it has been actually published. In respect of two research papers, they have been accepted for publication. Therefore, it is the case of the respondents that insofar as one research paper is concerned, it has been actually published. In respect of two research papers, they have been accepted for publication. According to the U.G.C. norms, which he placed reliance on, which is in relation to grant of the Ph.d., he would submit, on an analogy, that the same principle would apply, namely, once the research papers are accepted for publication, that would suffice. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University also adopted the same line of argument. 14. Learned Senior Counsel for the fifth respondent would, in fact, draw our attention also to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Neelima Misra Vs. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others reported in (1990) 2 SCC 746 . Para 32 of the said judgment read as follows: “32. It is not unimportant to point out that in matters of appointment in the academic field the Court generally does not interfere. In the University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, this Court observed that the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts in the absence of mala fide alleged against the experts. When appointments are based on recommendations of experts nominated by the Universities, the High Court has got only to see whether the appointment had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance. The High Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the Selection Committee and its recommendation on which the Chancellor has acted. See also the decisions in J.P. Kulshreshtha & Ors. v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, Raj Bhavan and Dalpat Abasahed Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan.” 15. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply, would submit that the norms relied on by the respondents in relation to the Ph.D. cannot be applied. 16. We agree with the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that selection made by experts should not be interfered with lightly. Bias, malafides indeed would vitiate the proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply, would submit that the norms relied on by the respondents in relation to the Ph.D. cannot be applied. 16. We agree with the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that selection made by experts should not be interfered with lightly. Bias, malafides indeed would vitiate the proceedings. As far as the merit of the selection is concerned, as to whether a candidate is to be preferred to another, who fulfill the eligibility condition, is essentially exclusively within the province of the selecting body; but, this is a far cry from saying that if a patent illegality in the selection process is established, the Court would abdicate its duty and decline jurisdiction. In this case, there is no case, as such, established of malafides or bias and to that extent, we are in agreement with the respondents; but, if there is a violation of law and it is palpable and it is not open to doubt, then the Court must perform its duty to set right the illegality. 17. In this case, the fifth respondent has effective publication in one journal on 07.06.2013 and for that she would be entitled to get 04 marks out of 15 marks. She has, however, been given 12 marks. This is on the basis of the two publications, which were published, admittedly, after the cut off date, namely, 10.06.2013; but, on the supposition that since they were both accepted for publication and an International Standard Serial Number was also given, the Selecting Body proceeded to take the view that the same will suffice. 18. It is trite that a person must posses the qualifications, which are prescribed in point of time either in terms of the Rule or Order. If no date is specified in the advertisement, as the date by which the candidate must possess the qualification, then it is settled law that the candidate must be possessed of the qualifications by the last date fixed for applying for the post. The qualifications include publication of research papers. 15 marks is allotted for publication of research papers. The requirement of the law is not that if a research paper is accepted for publication by a reputed institution, that will be treated as sufficient. The qualifications include publication of research papers. 15 marks is allotted for publication of research papers. The requirement of the law is not that if a research paper is accepted for publication by a reputed institution, that will be treated as sufficient. Since, both in the advertisement and also in the statutory provisions, the concept employed is publication, we would think that the Selecting Committee in this case acted illegally in awarding 08 marks on the basis that in between 2-3 publications have been made. Acceptance for publication cannot take the place from actual publication. 19. We are of the view that the attempt made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent to draw support from the conditions applicable for the grant of Ph.D. degree, where acceptance of the paper is treated as sufficient, is misplaced. In this case, we are concerned not with the grant of Ph.D. In this case, we are concerned with the qualifications fixed for the post of Assistant Professor. The clear words used in both the advertisement and also in the provisions, which we have noticed already, mandate actual publication and publication in reputed journals. Since there is only one publication by the fifth respondent, she was entitled to get only 04 marks, which means, after adding the marks obtained by the petitioner and the fifth respondent to the marks obtained out of 80 marks, the petitioner would end up securing 62.06 marks; whereas, the fifth respondent would secure only 54.39 marks. Therefore, Annexure No. 1 cannot be sustained. Equally, the appointment of the fifth respondent, which is to the post of Assistant Professor, will stand quashed and her appointment is also be quashed. 20. We direct that the petitioner be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in Education by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in place of fifth respondent. The order will be complied with within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. 21. The writ petition will stand allowed as above.