- (1.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider interference in this matter.
(2.) Though it is submitted that the issue raised herein regarding the operation of Regulations of 2009 is similar and akin to that involved in other writ petitions including the one entertained by this Court today being CWP No.8833/2011 but then, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the position that so far the present petitioner is concerned, she has not been able to obtain the requisite degree of Ph.D. on or before the cut off date in the advertisement in question.
(3.) The advertisement itself had been clear and specific in that regard and at the time of interview, a candidate is supposed to either show having acquired the qualification of NET/SET/SLET or the evidence to seek exemption on the ground that a Ph.D. had been awarded. The petitioner, not having any of the qualifications aforesaid is, obviously, to be considered a candidate disentitled for consideration.;