Commerce Assistant Professor Applicant’s Challenge Fails As P&H HC Finds Selected Rival Led By One Mark Before Interview

In brief

The question

Whether the selection and appointment of respondent No. 5 were arbitrary or contrary to the prescribed criteria, including in the allocation of marks for publications, seminars, and interview performance

The court held

The Court held that no sufficient ground had been shown to interfere with the selection under Article 226 and dismissed the writ petition

It also directed

The original record was returned, and any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of

01Facts

The petitioner challenged the selection and appointment of private respondents to Assistant Professor posts in Commerce advertised on 17 July 2014, alleging that she had higher marks under the prescribed criteria and that interview marks and marks for publications and seminars were improperly awarded

¶ 1–6

The respondents disputed her calculation and relied on the comparative statement and supporting documents produced from the original selection record

¶ 7–8, 15

The Court found that the petitioner had 37 marks under the prescribed criteria and respondent No. 5 had 38; their interview marks were 6 and 15 respectively, producing totals of 43 and 53

¶ 11–14

02Issues

i.Whether the selection and appointment of respondent No. 5 were arbitrary or contrary to the prescribed criteria, including in the allocation of marks for publications, seminars, and interview performance

¶ 9–16

ii.Whether the petitioner’s challenge, given the disputed assessment and supporting material, warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶ 15–19

03Law Applied

The Court considered its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the principle that selection must be assessed against the prescribed criteria and the material on record

¶ 1, 11–16

Relying on S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 1, and the authorities discussed therein, including Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das, (1999) 7 SCC 298, and T.N. Electricity Board v. Sumathi, (2000) 4 SCC 543, the Court stated that writ jurisdiction is generally unsuitable where resolution requires adjudication of disputed questions of fact, subject to the recognised exception where negligence and infringement of Article 21 are apparent

¶ 17

It also relied on Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Bharati Industries, cited in the judgment as 2005 (12) 725, for the principle that a writ petition should not be entertained where a factual controversy requires thorough evidentiary scrutiny

¶ 18

04Reasoning

The comparative statement contradicted the petitioner’s central assertion that she had a 13-mark advantage over respondent No. 5: she had 37 marks under the prescribed criteria, while respondent No. 5 had 38

¶ 11–13

Although respondent No. 5 received 15 interview marks against the petitioner’s 6, the difference alone did not establish manipulation or arbitrariness

¶ 14

The Court also found insufficient material to establish that the marks awarded to respondent No. 5 for publications or seminars violated the criteria; the supporting documents had been produced, and the petitioner’s challenge did not demonstrate an improper assessment

¶ 15

On the record as a whole, the petitioner failed to substantiate a breach of the selection criteria, and the factual allegations did not justify writ interference

¶ 16–19