Selection process for contract appointments not vitiated by transparency claims if advertised and fairly conducted.

The 3rd respondent, Director of Education, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, published an employment notice (Annexure-A1) on June 13, 2025, inviting applications for a panel list to engage faculty on a contract basis, including Principal roles, Assistant Professors, and Lecturers in Engineering for Higher Educational Institutions under the Department of Education in Lakshadweep.

Applicants, nine in number, responded to this notification.

The selection process was conducted, and a merit list was published on September 23, 2025.

The applicants, unhappy with not being selected, approached the Tribunal.

The applicants alleged that the selection process lacked transparency, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and that the selection committee was improperly constituted, specifically citing the Chairman, Attakoya, as lacking the requisite academic expertise as he is a primary teacher.

They also claimed that the respondents failed to adhere to UGC norms for weightage of academic qualifications and experience, that the interview was not video recorded, and that certificate verification was insufficient.

The respondents denied these allegations, stating that the employment notice was widely publicized on their website and in national dailies.

They claimed applications were received through an online portal, and interviews were conducted online to ensure transparency, accessibility, and fairness.

An expert panel was constituted in consultation with Pondicherry University, and the process was meticulously planned and executed.

They clarified that Sri. Attakoya, the Nodal Officer, holds MA, M.Ed., M.Phil (Education), cleared UGC NET twice, and has 28 years of experience, denying he was merely a primary teacher.

They also stated that 60% weightage was given for academic qualifications, 10% for additional qualifications, and 30% for interview performance, as per the notification.

They highlighted that the applicants had participated in the process and challenged it only after being unsuccessful.

While the Tribunal noted that reservation slots were not maintained as per DoPT instructions for temporary appointments exceeding 45 days, it also acknowledged that Annexure-A1 itself was not challenged, and some selected candidates were from the island, presumed to be Scheduled Tribes.

Whether the selection process for contractual appointments of faculty was illegal, arbitrary, and void ab initio due to lack of transparency, improper constitution of the selection committee, and non-adherence to UGC norms.

Whether the non-adherence to reservation policies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes vitiated the entire selection process.

The court considered the principles of transparency and natural justice in selection processes.

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (though not directly applied to vitiate the selection due to the unchallenged notification).

UGC norms for recruitment of teachers concerning qualifications and selection criteria.

Standing instructions from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) regarding the implementation of reservation policies even for temporary appointments exceeding 45 days.

The Tribunal found no valid reason to flaw the selection process.

It observed that Annexure-A1, the employment notice, was given wide publicity through the website and national newspapers, refuting the claim of lack of transparency.

The consolidated list of applicants and a shortlist were published (Annexure-R1(c)), and the interview was conducted online, allowing candidates accessibility.

An expert panel from Pondicherry University was consulted for interview committee formation.

The Tribunal specifically addressed and rejected the applicants' contention regarding the Chairman of the Committee, Attakoya, confirming his academic credentials and experience.

It noted that 60% weightage was given for academic qualifications, 10% for additional credentials, and 30% for interview performance as per the notification.

The argument that certificate verification was not prior was countered by the respondents stating it would occur before joining.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicants, having participated in the process and submitting letters of willingness, could not claim the process was flawed only after being unsuccessful.

While acknowledging the non-adherence to reservation slots in line with DoPT instructions for temporary appointments exceeding 45 days, the Tribunal decided not to intervene with the entire selection process since the Annexure-A1 notification itself was not challenged.

It noted that candidates selected from the island could be presumed to be Scheduled Tribes.

The Tribunal found no good reasons to interfere with the selection process, concluding that it was conducted after giving wide publicity, with credentials verified, and only qualified candidates being appointed.

Although the lack of adherence to reservation policies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was noted, the Tribunal did not set aside the selection process because the initial notification (Annexure-A1) was not challenged by the applicants.

However, the respondents were directed to ensure that standing instructions from the DoPT regarding reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes are adhered to in letter and spirit in all future recruitments, even on a contract basis exceeding 45 days.

No costs were awarded.