In a hearing that moved at a steady but tense pace, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Monday questioned why a university would accept a candidate’s postgraduate degree as “allied” for a PhD, only to reject the same qualification during faculty recruitment. Justice Sandeep Sharma delivered the order orally, leaving several in the courtroom nodding in agreement as he unpacked the inconsistency.
Background
Seema Sharma, currently serving as Guest Faculty in the Forest Products Department at Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, approached the court after being denied marks for her M.Sc. in Botany during the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor (Forest Products).
She argued that the same degree had earlier been accepted for her PhD admission in Forestry-specifically in Medicinal and Aromatic Plants-making the university’s latest stance not only confusing but also unfair. Her name did not appear in the final merit list prepared after interviews held in September 2022, which prompted her petition seeking revision of the result, a fresh assessment, and consideration for appointment.
Court’s Observations
During arguments, Sharma’s counsel, Senior Advocate Sanjeev Bhushan, emphasized that the university had already acknowledged Botany as an “allied discipline” when granting her PhD admission. “If Botany worked then, how can it suddenly become irrelevant now?” he questioned indirectly, as the bench listened closely.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Flags 'Mechanical Arrests', Declares Deepfake Case Arrest Illegal in Major
The court seemed persuaded. Justice Sharma noted that the university had itself granted her marks for M.Sc. Botany earlier while engaging her as Guest Faculty. He remarked, “Once Botany was treated as an allied subject for PhD, there was no occasion for the Interview Committee to deny marks for the same M.Sc. degree during faculty selection.”
At one point, the judge expressed concern over the shifting yardsticks used by the university, observing that such inconsistent application of rules could not be justified, especially when the candidate held a PhD squarely within the required domain.
The court also noted a significant development: although two posts advertised in June 2022 had already been filled, a third post remained vacant. The university confirmed that out of 16 sanctioned posts in the department, 13 were filled and 3 were unoccupied, but fresh appointments required approval from the state government.
Decision
Without disturbing the candidates already appointed, the High Court directed the university to reconsider Sharma’s candidature for the remaining post. It ordered the institution to treat her M.Sc. in Botany as a “concerned subject” and award marks on a pro-rata basis.
The bench clarified that even if Sharma’s revised score surpasses that of the currently appointed candidate, she cannot claim seniority over them-a balanced approach aimed at correcting injustice without disrupting existing appointments.
Finally, Justice Sharma instructed that the entire exercise be completed within four weeks. With that, the petition was disposed of, bringing a sense of closure to a dispute rooted largely in administrative inconsistency.
Case Title: Seema Sharma vs. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry & Anr.
Case Type: Civil Writ Petition (CWP)
Case No.: CWP No. 3257 of 2023
Date of Judgment/Order: 24 November 2025
