DR. L. BINU KUMAR vs THE VICE CHANCELLOR

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 01-10-2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 13-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 26866 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA011623782023}
AND
WMP No.26279 of 2023
L.Dr.Binu Kumar
S/o. D.Lawrence,
st
No. 5, 1 Cross Street, Kannaiah Nagar,
Bommaiyarpalayam, Puducherry 605 104
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Vice Chancellor
Pondicherry University,
R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet,
Puducherry - 605 014
2. The Executive Committee
Rep. By Its Chairman,
Pondicherry University,
R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet,
Puducherry 605 014.
3. The Selection Committee
Rep. By its Chairman,
Pondicherry University,
R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet,
Puducherry 605 014.
4. Pavithra
Selected as Assistant Professor,
Department Of Performing Arts,
Pondicherry University,
R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet,
Puducherry 605 014.
__________
Page1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
5. Priyanka Sharma
Selected as Assistant Professor,
Department Of Performing Arts,
Pondicherry University,
R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet,
Puducherry 605 014.
6. The Registrar,
Pondicherry University,
R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet,
Puducherry.605 014.
(R6-impleaded As Per Order Dated 25.02.2025
In WMP.6213/2025 in WP.26866/2023
By VBSJ)
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
to issue a writ of Declaration, declaring that selection of respondents 4 and 5 for
the post of Assistant professor in Performing Arts in the interview held on
8.06.2023 in pursuance of the notification in Advt. No. PU/ RC/CG/ 2019/ 35
dated 29.10.2019 issued by the Pondicherry University by ignoring the
petitioner who is the only qualified candidate and declare the same as null and
st
void and consequently direct the 1 respondent to select and appoint the
petitioner in the post of Assistant professor in Department of Performing Arts in
“Stage Craft and Backstage techniques”.
For Petitioner(s): Mrs.Vijayakumari Natarajan
For Respondent(s): Mr.V. Balamurugane for R1 To R3 & R6
Mr. M.R.Thangavel For R4
Mr.S.Silambanan
Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Rahul For R5
*
__________
Page2 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
ORDER
The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ
petition is that, the first respondent-University has issued a Recruitment
Notification on 29.10.2019, calling for two posts of Associate Professors and
one post of Assistant Professor for the Department of Performing Arts. In
pursuance thereof, the petitioner has applied for the post of an Assistant
Professor in performing Arts. The said post was reserved for OBC. In
pursuance thereof, the petitioner has applied for the said post along with others
and an interview was conducted on 08.06.2023. After the interview, the
respondents 1 to 3 have selected the private respondents 4 & 5. Aggrieved with
the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
2.Heard Mrs.Vijayakumari Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.V.Balamurugane, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3,
th
Mr.M.R.Thangavel, learned counsel for the 4 respondent,
Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.A.Rahul, learned
th
counsel for the 5 respondent.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that
the Recruitment Notification though was issued for the post of an Assistant
Professor under the Heading of Performing Arts, a specialisation has also been
__________
Page3 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
mentioned. According to the Notification, the specialisation is in “Stage Craft
and Backstage Techniques”. Except the petitioner, no other persons had
qualification in the above specialisation. Even the respondents 4 and 5 did not
possess qualification in specialisation subject. It is the further submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that, the very Expert Committee, which
conducted an interview is not a proper and an appropriate Expert Committee to
conduct interview for the post for an Assistant Professor under Performing Arts.
It is the contention of the petitioner that when the Recruitment Notification
calling for the vacancy of Performing Arts in specialisation of Stage Craft and
Backstage Techniques, none of the experts had relevant qualification in the
concerned subject. Therefore, when the Expert Committee is flawed, the entire
selection would be vitiated. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the
respondent has given marks to the private respondents over and above the
maximum marks which by itself demonstrate the blatant violation in the
recruitment process. Hence, prayed to interfere with the selection of the
respondents 4 and 5 by declaring that the respondents 4 and 5 are not eligible to
be appointed in the post of an Assistant Professor. It is also the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that having the Notification issued for one
vacancy, during the Recruitment process, they have increased the vacancy
__________
Page4 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
position and they appointed one more person as Assistant Professor. Hence, it is
the contention that there is an arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents.
Hence, prayed to interfere with the selection of the private respondents.
4. Per contra , the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and would contend that
the Expert Committee was formulated based upon the UGC guidelines, and that
according to the UGC guidelines, the Expert should be in the Performing Arts
and the Experts were from the Performing Arts. According to the learned
Standing Counsel, there are no grounds pleaded by the petitioner as to the mala
fideness in the selection process. Apart from that, the learned Standing Counsel
would contend that the specialisation referred to in Stage Craft and Backstage
Techniques would only be construed as a desirable qualification and not as an
essential qualification. It is also the contention of the learned Standing Counsel
that the marks awarded to the petitioner was for the educational qualification
qua with reference to their eligibility criteria to participate in the interview, and
not that those marks are relevant for ultimate selection and such selection, even
according to the Notification, was based upon their performance in the
interview. It is in this background, would contend that even if there is certain
__________
Page5 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
inadvertent mistake in awarding marks, will in no way advance the petitioner’s
case as the same has no impact upon the final selection of the candidates. It is
also the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner having
participated in the interview conducted by the Expert Committee, is estopped to
challenge the very Expert Committee. Hence, it is their contention that the
selection of the respondents 4 and 5 is in accordance with law, and that there are
no grounds to interfere with their selection. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ
Petition.
th
5.In addition to the above submission, the learned counsel for the 4
th
respondent would contend that the 4 respondent is more qualified than the
petitioner and that the prayer is not maintainable.
th
6.Similarly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5 respondent
would contend that increasing the post from 1 to 2 is in accordance with the
Notification, therefore, the petitioner cannot insinuate any motive for the same.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
7.I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
__________
Page6 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
8.The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner
is that the respondents 4 and 5 do not have the qualification in the relevant
subject viz., Stage Craft and Backstage Techniques. In this regard, it is relevant
to refer the notification issued by the respondents. According to the Notification
dated 29.10.2019 in serial no.28, for the School of Performing Arts, they called
for the vacancy of two posts of Associate Professor, and one post of Assistant
Professor under the communal category of OBC. The Notification refers about
the specialisation. For the Assistant Professor, the Specialisation is referred as
“Stage Craft and Backstage Techniques”.
9.Now the point to be considered here is, whether the reference of
specialisation is a primary consideration or it is a desirable qualification?. The
respondents have not disputed with respect to the qualification of the petitioner
in Drama and Theatre Arts. In respect of the Assistant Professor, the
qualification is referred to as follows:-
“ (iii) ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
a) Good academic record as defined by the concerned
university with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in
a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the
Master’s Degree level in a relevant subject from an Indian
University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign
university.
b) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate
__________
Page7 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET)
conducted by the UGC, CSIR.
c) Notwithstanding anything contained in (ii) above
candidates, who are, or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in
accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum
Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D Degree)
Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of
the minimum eligibility condition of NET.
d) NET shall also not be required for such Masters
Programmes in disciplines for which NET is not conducted.
III. A relaxation of 5% may be provided, from 55% to 50% of the
marks to the Ph.D degree holders, who have passed their Master’s
th
degree prior to 19 September, 1991.
IV. Relevant grade which is regarded as equivalent of 55%
wherever the grading system is followed by a recognised university
shall also be considered eligible.”
10.On close reading of the above qualification, it refers to the Master
Degree in a relevant subject from an Indian University. However, the word
“relevant subject” has not at all been defined in any of the Notification.
According to the specialisation, though it refers as Stage Craft and Backstage
Techniques, while looking into the qualification of the petitioner, he obtained
Master Degree and M.Phil in Drama and Theatre Arts. Therefore, the mere
reference of the Stage Craft and Backstage Techniques though referred, there
are no reference in the Notification that it is the requisite qualification to apply
for the post of Assistant Professor. Therefore, the “relevant subject” would only
__________
Page8 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
mean that a Master Degree in Drama. Admittedly, the petitioner and the private
respondents have Master Degree in Drama.
11.It is an admitted fact that under the major classification of Performing
Arts, there are sub categories, which are Dance, Music, Drama and Theatre
Arts. To put it differently, the above sub divisions would come within
“Performing Arts”. Since because there is a specialisation referred as Stage
Craft, Backstage Techniques, that by itself will not confer any specialised right
to exclude the other persons those who got a qualification in the relevant subject
viz., Drama. Therefore, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that since the petitioner has got specific qualification in Stage Craft
and Backstage Techniques will in no way excludes the other participants from
competing for the post of an Assistant Professor.
12.At this juncture, it is relevant to refer that the private respondents have
th
also got Master degree in Drama. While perusing the NET certificate, the 4
respondent Pavithra has successfully qualified in UGC NET in the subject of
Performing Art-Dance/Drama/Theatre. On perusal of the certificate given by the
Bangalore University, she has secured Gold medal in Acting/Stage Craft and
th
also in M.A., Drama. Similarly, the 5 respondent has also got Degree in M.A.,
Dramatics and Film studies. Therefore, it cannot be contended by the petitioner
__________
Page9 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
that the private respondents did not possess the requisite qualification.
Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, the
specialisation cannot be construed as the primary qualification, but it is only a
desirable qualification.
13.Generally, when the Expert Committee take decision, this Court
normally will not interfere in the selection. In this case, as rightly contended by
the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner has not pleaded any mala fides.
However, it is the contention that the very Expert Committee is flawed as the
specialisation being in Drama, the Experts ought to have been in the subject of
Drama. The petitioner contended that one of the expert is from Dance and other
two persons are from Music. No expert is from Drama. This position is not
seriously disputed by the respondent. The Selection Committee Ordinance 19,
Clause 7 deals about the Selection Committee for the post of an Assistant
Professor. For ready reference, the same is extracted hereunder:-
“The Selection Committee for the post of Assistant Professor in
the University shall have the following composition.
1.The Vice Chancellor shall be the Chairperson of the
Selection Committee. Vice Chancellor may delegate power to
Pro Vice Chancellor to chair the Selection Committee.
2.An academician nominated by the Visitor.
3. Three experts in the concerned subject nominated by the
Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names approved by the
Executive Council.
4.Dean of the concerned School, wherever applicable
__________
Page10 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
5.Chairperson of the Centre.
6.An academician representing SC/ ST/ OBC/ Minority/
Women/ Differently-abled categories to be nominated by the
Vice Chancellor, if any of the candidates representing these
categories is an applicant and if any of the above members of
the selection committee do not belong to that category.”
According to the above ordinance, the Expert of the concerned subject should
be drawn from the list of names approved by the Executive Council and selected
and nominated by the Vice Chancellor. Here, the concerned subject is “Drama”.
But, according to the petitioner, the Experts are not from the subject Drama,
which factum is not seriously disputed by the respondents.
14.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon
the Division Bench judgment of this Court in WA.No.2136 of 2025 [The
Registrar Vs. N.Mani and others] where the Division Bench, in paragraph 15
has held as follows:-
“15. We therefore do not find any necessity to go into the other
issues as to whether some of the members participated or not.
Once it is found that the constitution of the Committee itself is
flawed then, the non-selection of the petitioner in the writ petition
has to be essentially set aside. While sharing the anguish
expressed by the learned Judge, at a deliberate attempt being
made to keep out Scheduled Caste candidates from the post of
Professors in the University, that too, a Central University, of
which, the President of India happens to be the visitor, we are
unable to affirm the conclusion of the learned Judge regarding the
non-participation of the some of the members in the meeting held
on 21.11.2022. The minutes that has been produced before us
shows that the four members of the Committee had attended
__________
Page11 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
virtually and it is also shown that they had affirmed the minutes by
separate E-mail communications in February, 2023. Since the
composition of the Committee itself was flawed, the non-selection
of the petitioner has to be necessarily set aside.”
According to the above ratio, when the Selection Committee is flawed, then the
entire selection would be vitiated. He also relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.23141 of 2024 [Mandeep Singh &
Others Vs. State of Punjab and others], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that, when a law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner,
then it ought to have been done in that manner alone. According to the
petitioner, here the Expert Committee has not been constituted with an expert
having expertised in the concerned subject viz., Drama and Theatre Arts.
15.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-
University had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others
reported in (2023) 17 SCC 147 and the relevant portions are extracted
hereunder:-
“36. Thus, the inexorable conclusion that can be drawn is that it is not
within the domain of the courts, exercising the power of judicial review,
to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the
prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a Selection
Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven
allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such
cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the courts intervene.
__________
Page12 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
37. Thus, courts while exercising the power of judicial review cannot
step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate
role to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee
in the viva voce are excessive and not corresponding to their
performance in such test. The assessment and evaluation of the
performance of candidates appearing before the Selection
Committee/Interview Board should be best left to the members of the
committee. In light of the position that a Court cannot sit in appeal
against the decision taken pursuant to a reasonably sound selection
process, the following grounds raised by the writ petitioners, which
are based on an attack of subjective criteria employed by the Selection
Board/interview panel in assessing the suitability of candidates,
namely, (i) that the candidates who had done their postgraduation had
been awarded 10 marks and in the viva voce, such PG candidates had
been granted either 18 marks or 20 marks out of 20; (ii) that although
the writ petitioners had performed exceptionally well in the interview,
the authorities had acted in an arbitrary manner while carrying out the
selection process, would not hold any water.
……
59. Only 20 out of 100 marks were allocated for interview/viva voce.
The same is only 20% of the total marks which cannot be said to be an
excessive proportion out of the total marks. Further, courts cannot sit
in judgment over the award of marks by an interview panel. That is best
left to the judgment and wisdom of the interview panel. In the above
premise, we do not think there is any merit in the contention of the writ
petitioners regarding the award of marks to the candidates who
appeared for viva voce before the panel. Moreover, the award of 80%
of the total marks is on objective criteria depending upon the
educational qualification of the individual candidates.
60. Further, it appears to us the criteria was recast vide Corrigendum
dated 12-6-2009, by increasing the weightage accorded to candidates
possessing a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Chemistry and
advanced qualifications such as postgraduate degrees, PhD, etc. with a
view to incentivise more qualified persons who had applied for the said
posts. Recasting the criteria was only with regard to allocation of
marks for the respective educational qualification of the candidates. In
our view, it was with a view to preserve the standards of the selection
process and was not motivated by mala fides or oblique motive. Higher
the qualification a candidate possessed, higher marks were awarded. In
other words, the minimum marks awarded for educational qualification
was 65 and could increase to 80 depending on the higher qualifications
__________
Page13 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
of the candidates. Therefore, we are unable to interfere with the
selection process on the ground that the award of marks was recast
unilaterally. The reallocation of marks based on the educational
qualification was in recognition of the higher qualification of the
candidates which cannot be termed to be arbitrary. It is a no-brainer
that any candidate who was aggrieved by the recast of marks would
either withdraw his candidature or challenge the Corrigendum dated
12-6-2009 at a preliminary stage in the selection process. However, the
writ petitioners did not do so. Having participated in the selection
process without any demur or protest, the writ petitioners cannot
challenge the same as being tainted with mala fides, merely because
they were unsuccessful. ”
16.This Court has no quarrel with the above ratio. But, the issue now
centres around the flawed Expert Committee. As already stated, this Court
arrived at a conclusion that the private respondents are also qualified to be
participated in the Recruitment process. The Court while exercising the judicial
review cannot sit over the selection made by the Experts, unless there is a mala
fide and fraud. Here, such is not the case. But, the main attack made by the
petitioner is in respect of the flawed Selection Committee. However, the learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents and the learned Senior Counsel and the
other learned counsel for the private respondents would contend that the
petitioner having participated in the interview process, estopped to challenge the
Expert panel. Though such being the position in general, admittedly, before
attending interview nobody knows the quorum of the Experts. Only during the
interview, the candidates would encounter or would know who is the Expert.
__________
Page14 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing counsel that the petitioner
ought to have objected the Experts Committee before attending the interview, to
my mind, is not an appropriate argument.
17.Before we delve further, this Court on its own initiative, analysed the
website of the Pondicherry University, wherein they offered the following
degrees:-
● B.P.A(Honors) Drama and Theatre Arts,
● M.P.A Drama and Theatre Arts,
● M.Phil Drama and Theatre Arts,
● P.G Diploma in Drama and Theatre Arts and
● Ph.D Drama and Theatre Arts.
18.In the website, the private respondents’ name and their photos are also
find a place indicating that they are the Assistant Professor of the Department of
Performing Arts. On perusal of the above web page, it is crystallised that the
concerned subject in the formation of the Expert Committee would be from the
subject of Drama. But, contrarily, out of the three experts, none of them is from
Drama, but one of them is from “Music” and another two from “Dance”. This
__________
Page15 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
position has not been seriously disputed. So, in that scenario, if we apply the
ratio laid down by this Court in N.Mani's case [cited supra] and also the
judgement of the Supreme Court in Mandeep Singh's case [cited supra], this
Court is of the firm view that the Expert panel formed by the respondent is
flawed, though, this Court holds that this petitioner and the private respondents
are qualified to participate in the recruitment process.
19.Hence, this Court is of the indubitable view that the selection of
private respondents is liable to be set aside. As a concomitant, the matter is
remitted back to the respondents to conduct a fresh interview to all those who
participated in the interview earlier, by appointing Experts in strict compliance
to Ordinance 19, Clause 7 of the Pondicherry University Act and complete the
de novo interview process, within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and the newly selected persons to be appointed
within a further period of four(4) weeks. Till then, considering the interest of the
students, the private respondents namely Respondents 4 and 5 are permitted to
continue as Assistant Professors.
__________
Page16 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
20. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected WMP is also closed.
13-11-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KMI
Note : Original Records may be returned after due acknowledgement.
To
1. The Vice Chancellor
Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet,
Puducherry 605 014
2. The Executive Committee
Rep. By Its Chairman, Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar,
Kalapet, Puducherry 605 014.
3. The Selection Committee
Rep. By Its Chairman, Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar,
Kalapet, Puducherry 605 014.
4. The Registrar,
Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar,
Kalapet, Puducherry.605 014.
__________
Page17 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )

2026:MHC:4555
WP No. 26866 of 2023
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KMI
WP No. 26866 of 2023
AND
WMP N o . 26279 of 2023
13-11-2026
__________
Page18 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:53 pm )