JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. CMP-T No. 60 of 2023 By way of instant application, a prayer has been made on behalf of applicant for deletion of the name of respondent No.3 from the array of parties. It has been averred in the application that respondent No.3 being Member of Executive Council Himachal Pradesh University Shimla was arrayed as party-respondent, but since no relief has been claimed against him, he may be ordered to be deleted from the array of parties. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Name of respondent No.3 is ordered to be deleted from the array of parties. Registry to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties. The application stands disposed. CWPOA No. 660 of 2020 Vide advertisement dated 8.9.2014, Annexure R-1/A, respondent No.1-Himachal Pradesh University advertised posts of Assistant Professor in various streams. Petitioner being fully eligible, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the stream of Hindi. He being fully eligible/qualified was invited for interview and on the basis of his qualification was awarded 36.75 marks out of 80. Since other candidate Ms. Poonam Chauhan, respondent No.2, secured more marks than petitioner i.e 38.15, petitioner was unable to get appointment against the post of Assistant Professor in the stream of Hindi. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with his non selection against the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), petitioner approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 5986 of 2016, which now on account of abolishment of erstwhile Tribunal stands transferred to this Court and has been re-registered as CWPOA No. 660 of 2020, praying therein following reliefs: “i) That the appointment of respondent No.2 may kindly be set aside and direction may kindly be issued to appoint the applicant from retrospective date. ii) That respondent No.1 may be directed to keep one post of Assistant Professor, Hindi (reserved for PWD) as vacant or create a new post of Assistant professor, Hindi (reserved for PWD) considering the qualifications of the applicant.” 3. ii) That respondent No.1 may be directed to keep one post of Assistant Professor, Hindi (reserved for PWD) as vacant or create a new post of Assistant professor, Hindi (reserved for PWD) considering the qualifications of the applicant.” 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was not awarded adequate marks qua the component of publication, as a result of which, he was unable to secure more marks than selected candidates i.e. respondents No.2. 4. Ms. Rita Hingmang, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that bare perusal of publication annexed by petitioner along with application clearly reveals that he ought to have been awarded full marks against the aforesaid component but without there being any justification, only 2.50 marks out of 5 marks have been awarded in favour of the petitioner, as a result of which, he was unable to secure first position in the merit list. 5. After having carefully perused tally-sheet, wherein marks obtained by the candidates have been given, this Court finds that against the component of publication, petitioner has been awarded 2.50 marks out of 5 marks, whereas other two candidates Ms. Poonam Chauhan and Mr. Brij Lal have not been awarded any marks against aforesaid component, because either they had not furnished details with regard to publication or they had no publication or documents in their names. Since Interview Committee after having perused details of publication placed on record by petitioner has already awarded marks i.e. 2.50 marks, no illegality can be said to have been committed while declaring the petitioner unsuccessful. Though learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner ought to have been awarded higher marks against the component of publication but such plea of her cannot be accepted for the reason that publication, if any, are/were to be considered by the Expert/Interview Committee, which having specific knowledge about the documents to be considered against the component of the publication can be said to be best person to award the marks and definitely Court cannot substitute its views for the wisdom of Expert/Interview Committee. Since Expert Committee after having perused documents placed on record has already awarded 2.50 marks out of 5 marks to the petitioner, there is no scope left for this Court to interfere on the ground, as has been sought to be set up by learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, this Court finds that aforesaid ground of not awarding adequate marks against the component of publication was never raised at the time of filing of the petition. 6. Another submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that Interview Committee by not granting marks to petitioner against his qualification of Ph.D, deserves outright rejection. Bare perusal of the reply filed by respondent-University reveals that at the time of interview, petitioner had not obtained degree of Ph.D rather at that time he had only submitted thesis, which were yet to be approved. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since as per Rules of University, thesis submitted by a candidate pursuing Ph.D were to be rejected or accepted within a specific period of three months and in the case of petitioner, same were neither rejected nor accepted, petitioner was deemed to have completed degree of Ph.D and in that event Interview Committee was under obligation to award marks on account of his having degree of Ph.D. However, this Court is not impressed with the aforesaid argument for the reason that decision, if any, to accept or reject , thesis was not in the domain of Interview Committee, which was only to see whether on the date of interview, candidate seeking appointment against the post in question, possessed requisite qualification or not? Since at the time of interview, petitioner was not possessing degree of Ph.D, there was no occasion for the Interview Committee to award him marks against that component. Moreover, record reveals that thesis of Ph.D submitted by the petitioner was after cut-off date given in the advertisement. 8. Though, this Court finds no unreasonableness in the decision of interview board in awarding more marks to respondent No. 2 but even otherwise, while exercising writ jurisdiction, court cannot substitute its own views for that of wisdom of Selection Committee possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day to day working. 8. Though, this Court finds no unreasonableness in the decision of interview board in awarding more marks to respondent No. 2 but even otherwise, while exercising writ jurisdiction, court cannot substitute its own views for that of wisdom of Selection Committee possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day to day working. Reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education versus Khushboo Shrivastava and others (2014) 14 Supreme Court Cases 523, wherein it has been held as under:- “29….. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grassroots problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded.” Consequently, in view of aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed alongwith pending application(s).