Assistant Professor Applicant Loses Challenge to Rival’s Selection as P&H HC Finds Signed Note Justified Her 16 Interview Marks

Respondent No. 3 advertised a regular post of Assistant Professor in English under the General category.

The petitioner applied and was interviewed on 9 April 2015.

He challenged the selection of respondent No. 5, contending that his publications and seminar presentations were not properly credited under the selection criteria and that respondent No. 5’s interview score exceeded the threshold permitted by the instructions dated 18 June 2014 without adequate reasons.

The petitioner received 7.6 interview marks out of 20; respondent No. 5 received an average of 16.

The University later placed the selection record on the court file with an application to produce additional documents.

The Court’s review of a selection is limited to examining arbitrariness, mala fides, or breach of applicable rules; it does not sit as an appellate authority over an expert Selection Committee, though the employer must act within the notified criteria.

Under the selection criteria, marks for publications depended on publication in referred journals, while research-performance marks depended on papers presented at seminars sponsored by the UGC or State Government.

The instructions dated 18 June 2014 permitted marks below 5 or above 15 only in rare cases, with reasons recorded in the proceedings and signed by the Selection Committee.

The Court relied on Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362, for the principle that courts should not substitute their view for an employer’s assessment of suitability unless the decision is patently arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides.

The Court found that the Selection Committee had considered the petitioner’s credentials and that only a limited number of his publications and seminar presentations met the specific criteria; the petitioner therefore failed to establish a violation warranting judicial intervention.

As to respondent No. 5’s interview marks, the committee proceedings recorded that she received the highest marks because she had performed extremely well in the interview, and the record was signed by the committee members.

The Court held that this contemporaneous certification satisfied the requirement to record reasons for awarding more than 15 marks; no mala fides or extraneous considerations were shown.

It dismissed the writ petition and disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications.