Pondicherry University’s Two Performing Arts Assistant Professor Selections Set Aside Over Panel’s Lack of Drama Experts: Madras HC Orders Fresh Interviews

Pondicherry University’s 29 October 2019 notification invited applications for an OBC-reserved Assistant Professor post in Performing Arts, identifying “Stage Craft and Backstage Techniques” as the specialisation.

After interviews on 8 June 2023, respondents 4 and 5 were selected.

The petitioner challenged their selection, contending that they lacked the specified specialisation and that the Selection Committee lacked experts in Drama, the relevant subject.

The University maintained that the specialisation was desirable, the candidates were qualified, and the Committee complied with UGC guidelines.

The Court found that the petitioner and the selected candidates were qualified to participate, but that none of the three experts was from Drama: one was from Music and two from Dance.

Under Ordinance 19, clause 7 of the Pondicherry University Act, the Selection Committee for an Assistant Professor must include three experts in the concerned subject, nominated from a panel approved by the Executive Council.

The Court relied on The Registrar v. N. Mani, W.A. No. 2136 of 2025, for the principle that a selection may be set aside when the Selection Committee’s composition is flawed.

It also relied on Mandeep Singh v. State of Punjab, SLP (C) No. 23141 of 2024, for the principle that a prescribed procedure must be followed in the prescribed manner.

While Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2023) 17 SCC 147, cautions that courts should not reassess expert evaluations absent proven malfeasance or violation of statutory rules, the Court distinguished a challenge to the Committee’s composition from a challenge to its assessment of candidates.

The notification did not define “relevant subject” or state that Stage Craft and Backstage Techniques was an essential eligibility requirement.

The petitioner and the selected candidates held relevant Drama qualifications; the Court therefore treated the stated specialisation as desirable, not as a basis for excluding the selected candidates.

However, the University’s own courses and the post’s context established Drama as the concerned subject, while the Committee had experts only from Music and Dance.

Because Ordinance 19, clause 7 required experts in the concerned subject, the Committee was improperly constituted.

The petitioner’s participation did not prevent the challenge: candidates would learn the experts’ identities only at the interview.

The defect concerned compliance with the prescribed composition, not judicial review of the experts’ assessment.

It set aside the selection of respondents 4 and 5 and remitted the matter for fresh interviews of all candidates who participated previously, before a Committee constituted in compliance with Ordinance 19, clause 7.

The University was directed to complete the interviews within four weeks and appoint the newly selected candidates within a further four weeks.

Respondents 4 and 5 were permitted to continue in their posts until then.

The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.