Summary
The Supreme Court invalidated a university’s Physical Training Instructor selections because undisclosed criteria, unequal qualification marking and erratic repeated interviews made the process arbitrary. It restored the Single Judge’s ruling, excluded the overage appointee, and directed fresh consideration of the appellant and the other three eligible parties through one interview each and a common merit list. It did not award the appellant automatic appointment.
Issues
- Whether undisclosed selection criteria and repeated interviews vitiated the appointments.
- Whether participation barred challenge to previously undisclosed criteria.
- What fresh selection directions and age eligibility consequences followed.
Held
- Selection must follow the advertised conditions and applicable rules. A selection committee cannot introduce an unauthorised yardstick or relax essential requirements midway through recruitment. Eligible applicants have a right to lawful consideration rather than a vested right to selection. (¶ 10–10.4)
- The committee fixed undisclosed marking criteria on the interview day and treated advertised eligible qualifications differently. Four interviews by the same committee on the same day produced drastic unexplained variations; the process was arbitrary on the combined facts. (¶ 11–15)
- Participation did not estop the appellant from challenging criteria that had not been disclosed to her. Her challenge was not belated in the circumstances. (¶ 12–13)
- The governing age cut-off could not be displaced by later internal university notings. Respondent 6 was ineligible and his appointment was quashed. (¶ 16–18)
- Fresh consideration was confined to the litigating eligible candidates: the appellant and respondents 5, 7 and 8. Each was to receive one interview, without separate marks for different qualifications absent an advertised stipulation, followed by a common merit and seniority list for college allocation. (¶ 18–21)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs; Division Bench judgment set aside and Single Judge ruling restored. Four appointments quashed; respondent 6 excluded as overage. Committee constitution within four weeks of placing the order before the Chancellor and selection within eight weeks of constitution directed.