1. By present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner has prayed for a writ of Mandamus directing U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (for short the Commission), to allow the Petitioner to appear before the interview board for the post of Lecturer in Defence Studies and to interview the Petitioner along with other candidates had not to enforce Regulation 6 framed under Section 31 of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 (for short the Act) in respect of screening the candidates before being called for interview.

2. The Petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Defence Studies in pursuance of the advertisement dated 2nd August, 1986. The application of the Petitioner in the prescribed from was accepted. In the first week of January 1987 the Petitioner came to know that other candidates have been called for interview but he did not receive any interview letter. He went to the office and came to know that the interview shall commence since 6th of January 1987 but he was not called for interview as he was not within the criteria prescribed under the guide lines framed by the Commission.

3. According to the Petitioner he fulfilled the requisite qualification as he has secured good second class marks (54.3%) in Intermediate and 50% marks in B.A. 58% marks in M.A. in Defence Studies. The Petitioner joined his research course for obtaining D. Phil degree under Dr. S.P. Pandey, Reader in the department of Defence Studies, University of Allahabad and has got published one research paper in Quarterly Strategle Studies 1 New Delhi and deserve to be called for interview.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Secretary of the Commission and rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. As suggested and learned Counsel for the parties agreed that the writ petition may be decided finally on merits, we proceed to decide the petition as such.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that Petitioner fulfilled all the requisite qualifications as specified in Annexure SA 7 to the supplementary affidavit under heading 4.1 which was consistent with the relevant Studies of the University. Although the Petitioner was not having Master of Philosophy degree but he has got a research paper published which indicates that he has got capacity of independent research work and he was having the qualification prescribed under 4.1(kha) consistently good academic record but nevertheless he was not called for the interview. The criterian laid down, under Regulation 6 framed under Section 31 of the Act was invalid.

6. Learned Counsel for the Commission on the other hand urged that under Regulation 6 criterion has been laid down to make screening in accordance with the principles laid down by the Commission under the guidelines and accordingly the candidates higher in merit are called for interview and those candidates who were comparatively of lesser merit are not called for the interview. The Petitioner was having consistently good academic record no doubt but other candidates were better qualified than the Petitioner inasmuch as some of them were having Ph.D. degree or having at least one first class and similarly some of them were having consistently better academic records than the Petitioner. A number of categories have been created and on that basis the candidates are screened. No doubt the Petitioner indicated that he was having a paper published but unless the Petitioner was having Ph.D. degree or equivalent degree, just publication of a research paper was not sufficient to enable the Petitioner to be brought in the category of persons called for interview. The screening is done in the office of the Commission by the persons deputed on the posts created for this purpose but they need not be having so much high qualification as to judge the merits and demerits of the research papers and they do not possess such high merit as to adjudge whether the publication of particular paper would indicate that the candidate concerned has got capacity for independent research work. The Petitioner was therefore, not assigned any mark on the basis of the publication of research paper. Reliance was placed on Division Bench decisions of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19710 of 1986 Smt. Kavita Srivastava v. State of U.P. decided on 4th December, 1986 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10377 of 1987 Umesh Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Higher Education Service Commission decided on 29th October, 1987. The records pertaining to the screening and guidelines laid down under Regulation 6 were also produced before us in original and we have perused the same in presence of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

7. As regards the principal submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that publication of his research paper was not taken into account we are of the opinion that the guidelines prepared by the Commission under Regulation 6 are self explicit and a number of criterian to screen the qualifications of respective candidates have been taken into account. As the research paper indicating that the candidate has got capacity for independent research could not be judged in the office as that would require specially trained persons in different subjects. In case the Petitioner could obtain Ph.D. or D. Phil degree, that could have been taken into account and that could have added weight to his merit in the screening test. Mere publication of some papers would not indicate that he was having Doctorate degree or Masters degree in Philosophy nor it could be said that his merit was rejected arbitrarily by the Commission when in fact the guide lines for all the candidates were same and other candidates having better qualification than the Petitioner were called for interview.

8. In Km. Kavita Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Ors. the Division Bench being faced with similar arguments held that the guidelines prepared in pursuance of Regulations framed under Section 31 of the Act were perfectly valid. The guidelines have been prepared in pursuance of Kegulation 6. The candidates to be called for interview must be eight in respect of 1-3 vacancies and 7 in respect of 4 to 6 vacancies. The number of candidates to be called for interview must decrease when number of vacancy increases. There are 13 categories in order of merit, to screen the candidates before issuing interview letters. First category consists of candidates having Doctorate degree with average 55% marks in intermediate or higher secondary and more than 54% in post Graduate. The second category is for doctorate with 50% average in Inter or Higher Secondary or more than 54% in post Graduate. Category 3 and 4 consists of M. Phil candidates with academic record as in category 1 and 2. Category 5 consists of M.A. or M.Sc. with 60% in all three examinations (Intermediate, Graduation and post Graduation). Similarly other categories have been made.

9. Similarly whether guidelines were arbitrary or beyond the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, were challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10377 of 1987 Umesh Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Higher Education Service Commission and Ors. A division bench of this Court while dismissing the writ petition on 29-10-87 held that Section 11-A of the Act clearly gives power to Commission to prepare guidelines on matters relating to the method of recruitment of teachers in Degree Colleges. Further in exercise of the powers under Section 31 of U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 the Commission has framed Regulation known as the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Regulation 1983. Regulation 6 provides that the Commission shall interview the candidates in accordance with the criteria, minimum standards and guidelines set out by it. In accordance with those guidelines screening was done and the candidates were called for the interview. we have perused original papers pertaining to the comperative merits of the candidates who were called for the interview and after examining the same in presence of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Commission and Standing Counsel, we are satisfied that even though the Petitioner was having consistently good academic record but other candidates were better qualified than the Petitioner. Guidelines for screening the candidates were shown to us in which first category was of the candidates having Doctorate degree (Ph.D. or D. Phil.) with average marks of 54-55%. Second category was of the candidates having Doctorate degree with 50 to 54% marks. Third category was of the candidates having M. Phil degree 50 to 54% average marks. Fourth category was of the candidates having M. Phil degree with 50 to 53% marks. Similarly there were 13 categories. In view of these facts we are satisfied that the Petitioner was correctly not called for interview and the guide lines for the screening cannot be said to be arbitrary nor the provisions of Regulation 6 can be said to be beyond the scope of Section 31(11)(a) of the Act.

10. It may be again stated that in category 1 there were 8 candidates available and they all were called for interview. In category 2 there were 2 candidates available all were called for interview. In category 5, 6 candidates were available and all were called for interview. In category 6, 22 candidates were available out of which only 12 candidates were called for interview and 10 were rejected after screening. In category 7 only 1 candidate was available but he was rejected after screening. In category 8, 13 candidates were available and all of them were called for interview. In category 9, 10 candidates were available but only 1 was called for interview and 9 were rejected after screening. In category 10, 17 candidates were available but only 1 was called for interview and 16 were rejected, after screening. Petitioners category was lower than 10th category. This fact we are stating on the basis of original papers pertaining to the criteria for screening. We have seen the original papers and are satisfied that although the Petitioner was having consistently good academic record but the candidates called for interview were better qualified than the Petitioner. There was DO injustice done with the Petitioner when he was not called for the interview.

11. Half heartedly learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the Petitioner has got teaching experience as he has served for sometime as lecturer in Defence Studies in Ishwar Sharan Degree College hence that ought to have been taken into account for screening. But we are not impressed by this argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner. We have indicated above that the screening was done on the basis of guide lines framed under Regulation 6 and the candidates called for interview were having better merit as compared to the Petitioner. In a decision in Civil Misc. Writ No. 5069 of 1985 Dr. Shri Krishna Das Gupta v. State decided on 1st August 1986 a Division Bench of this Court ruled that after the applications are received, the candidates are summoned for interview on the basis of guide lines adopted by the Commission. As stated above we have seen the guidelines and no mistake was committed by the Commission in making the screening on the basis of guide lines which are quite fair and reasonable and the teaching experience remained meaningless as according to guide lines the requisite qualifications and merits of the candidates are adjudged before they are actually called for interview. In that writ petition (Dr. Shri Krishna Das Gupta) the argument for giving weight to experienced candidates was rejected and the guide lines and screening before calling the candidates for interview have been held to be valid. In two connected writ petitions Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7281 of 1986 Tara Chand Pathak v. State of U.P. and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18082 of 1985 Dr. Suman Agarwal v. State of U.P. Division Bench of this Court held that the guidelines prepared under Regulation 6 were not arbitrary and sufficient criteria has been laid down and the categories which are 13 in number have been created to screen merits of respective candidates before calling them for interview and those guide lines cannot be said to be arbitrary.

12. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore we are satisfied that there was no error in not calling the Petitioner for interview as the candidates called for interview were having better merit than the Petitioner. Guide lines framed under Regulation 6 cannot be said to be arbitrary. In case the Petitioner could have proved his coraperative better merit in the screening and he could have summoned for interview, in that event the value of his research paper could have been appreciated but before the Petitioner could cross screening test his candidature was rejected. We have all human sympathy with the Petitioner as he was teaching as a lecturer in Defence Studies but human sympathies are not all before the Court of law. We have to do justice according to law and not on the basis of humaniterian considerations alone. Considering all the circumstances we do not find any merit in the present writ petition, consequently it is dismissed. Interim stay order dated 8th January 1987 is hereby vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.