Reader. At any rate, while considering the claim of the petitioner in the interview held on 5.2.2008 the screening committee duly constituted in accordance with the relevant provisions, did not enter any such findings rather objections in the case of any of the candidates appeared for the interview including that of the petitioner. Respondents 2, 5 and 6 did not have any such contention. Therefore, it is only safe to presume that they considered the published works of the petitioner as satisfactory. Going by the contentions of the first respondent the screening committee was empowered to evaluate such aspects as well. According to the first respondent, it is only on account of the failure on the part of the first respondent that they resorted to such a method. In this context, it is also to be noted that respondents 2, 5 and 6 did not have a case in their counter affidavit that the duly constituted screening committee found the published works of the petitioner unsatisfactory for considering her for re-designation as Reader. At any rate, going by the objections raised by the respondents in the matter of approval of promotion of the petitioner as Reader they did not reflect any inherent ineligibility on her for consideration to the aforesaid post. The laches and lapses on the part of respondents 2, 5 and 6, if any, now stood rectified. In the said circumstances, I am of the considered view that the
