Selection Process Conducted via Interview Alone for Senior Academic Posts is Valid if Justified by Guidelines

The applicant, a highly qualified Neurologist, challenged the rank list [Annexure A1] published on 30.06.2023 for the permanent post of Assistant Professor (Neurology) at the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute (SCTIMST)

The applicant contended that the selection process was flawed because: (i) despite 17 candidates being shortlisted for 2 unreserved vacancies, no written screening test was conducted as per the notification; (ii) Respondents 5 and 6 lacked the requisite post-DM experience; and (iii) the interview evaluation was biased, evidenced by uniform marks awarded by multiple evaluators

The respondents maintained that a written test was only mandatory if candidates exceeded 12 per vacancy and that the evaluation was fair and independent

1. Whether the failure to conduct a written screening test when 17 candidates were shortlisted violated the selection process prescribed in Annexure A6 notification and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

2. Whether the selection of candidates based solely on an interview is legally permissible for high-level academic positions

3. Whether the evaluation process was tainted by bias or lack of independent assessment due to the uniformity of marks assigned by the evaluators

The Tribunal applied the principle that "rules of the game" cannot be changed after the process begins, as established in Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve [(2001) 10 SCC 51]

Regarding selection by interview, it relied on Kiran Gupta v. State of UP [(2000) 7 SCC 719], which clarified that for higher posts requiring mature personalities, an interview can be the sole criterion, distinguishing the earlier student-admission focused ruling in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib [(1981) 1 SCC 722]

The Tribunal also adhered to the principle of judicial restraint in reviewing the technical evaluations of expert selection committees

The Tribunal found that Clause 10 of the notification and the Institute’s General Body resolution [Annexure R1(a)] implied that the "12-candidate rule" for written tests applies per vacancy; thus, with 17 candidates for 2 vacancies, the ratio was below the threshold for a mandatory exam

On the issue of experience, the Tribunal noted that all selected candidates possessed the essential DM qualification and that "desirable" criteria did not override essential eligibility

Regarding the "suspicious" uniformity in marks, the Tribunal conducted an in-camera inspection of the original evaluation sheets. It discovered that evaluators had indeed assessed candidates independently, and that minor variations in specific heads—not visible in the RTI summaries—had tilted the final rankings

The Tribunal concluded that uniformity among experts when assessing high-caliber candidates is not evidence of bias but rather a consensus of professional judgment

The Original Application was dismissed