JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The controversy engaging the hereat litigants, is, confined, to the interse suitability, of, the writ petitioner, and of the selected candidate(s), hence arrayed as co-respondent No. 3, and, who became selected, and, appointed against the advertised post, of, Public Relation Officer, hence by co-respondent No. 2. 2. The advertisement notice, is, borne in Annexure A- 4. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules, are embodied in Annexure R-1, and the hereat apposite portion thereof, carries prescription(s), vis-à-vis, the, imperative necessities, of, all aspirants concerned, satiating the borne therein hence eligibility criteria, apposite portion whereof becomes extracted hereinafter: Minimum Education and other qualification for direct recruit(s) Essential Qualification: (i) Bachelor of Journalism and Mass Communication/Public Relations/Bachelor of Public Relations & Advertising from a recognized University A perusal thereof, underscores, that the aspirants concerned, were enjoined to satiate all the afore therein(s)prescribed eligibility criteria. 3. The writ petitioner, in purported satiation thereof, has successfully completed MJMC from the Himachal Pradesh University. Furthermore, he also, as displayed by Annexure A-2, accomplished the enjoined working or the experience criteria, prescribed in Clause-III thereof, inasmuch as, he has, for, the prescribed therein tenure, of, three years, worked as a Journalist, inasmuch as, with, “Hindusthan Samachar”, a multilingual News Agency. However, the respondent concerned, as evident on a reading of its reply, to the writ petition, rather declared co-respondent No. 3, to be the successfully selected candidate, against the afore advertised post, and, also appointed him thereagainst. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, does not, challenge the worthiness, of, the declaration, of, result(s), as made by the respondent concerned, hence appertaining to the advertised post. Contrarily, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, challenges the acceptance by the respondent concerned, rather, of, a certification, issued by the Registrar, Shoolini University of Biotechnology and Management Sciences, established under the (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2009 (Act No. 20 of 2009), wherein the selected candidate evidently becomes certified to render thereat work, as a Public Relation Officer, for the required period, of, three years, and, as becomes encapsulated, in the apposite thereto canon, of apposite clause-III, hence, appertaining, to, the advertised post. The validity, of, acceptance, of, the afore certificate, issued by the afore, is, challenged, on the grooving, that since the experience, of, three years, as a Public Relation(s) Officer, is, in, the relevant canon, of, clause-III, and, as appertains, to, the apposite advertised post, enjoins upon the aspirant concerned, to, rather gain, the desired working experiential qualification, through his, working in the afore capacity, in a government department, or, a Public Sector undertaking, (ii) whereas, with Shoolini University, rather not falling within the afore category, (iii) thereupon, the afore apposite certificate, in display, of the selected candidates begetting satiation, of, the imperative experience criteria, became unamenable, for acceptance. However, the afore made submission(s), before this Court, is, unworthy, for acceptance, as a perusal respectively, of, Annexure R-3-II, and, of Annexure R-3- III, respectively display(s), that Shoolini University, became respectively constituted, by the Government, of, Himachal Pradesh, through, powers vested in the constituting authority, under, sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the “Shoolini University of Biotechnology and Management Sciences (Establishment and Regulation( Act. 2009, and, that the certificate of Accreditation, being granted thereto, by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council, hence an autonomous institution of the University Grants Commission. The afore unfoldments, carried, respectively, in Annexure R-3-II and R-3-III, renders hence Shoolini University, to, become constituted, by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, in exercise, of, the apposite powers, vested in it, under a statute, carrying the nomenclature, as, becomes described therein, (iv) whereupon with Shoolini University owing its genesis, to, a statute, and also its owing its constitution or establishment, to apposite statutory powers, becoming exercised, by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, (v) thereupon it becomes a semi-government institution, or a statutory institution. Moreover, with the apposite accreditation, as becomes granted, to Shoolini University, through Annexure R-3-III, is, hence by an autonomous institution, of, the University Grants Commission, inasmuch as, by the National assessment and Accreditation Council, (iv) thereupon the workings, of, respondent No. 3, at the Shoolini University, as a Public Relation Officer, for three years, does, mete satiation, with the relevant experience criteria, prescribed in subclause- 3, of, the apposite clause, appertaining to the advertised post. In-sequel, the afore challenge, as becomes made, by the counsel for the writ petitioner, to, the validity, of, acceptance, by co-respondent No. 1, of the afore certificate of experience, as a Public Relation Officer(s), and, as emanates from Shoolini University, is, unworthy, of, acceptance, and, is rejected. 4. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Also, pending application(s),if any, are also disposed of.