Summary
A selected Assistant Professor challenged a direction awarding his rival five publication marks. The Court found the University’s inconsistent assessment unexplained but held that experts, rather than the writ court, must assign marks. It also found separate general and OBC interviews defective and directed expert reconsideration with a joint merit list, protecting existing appointees except the appellant whose appointment remained subject to the revised decision.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could itself award publication marks.
- Whether separate category-wise interviews and the inconsistent publication assessment required reconsideration.
Held
- The earlier applications remained operative under the new advertisement, and the same committee credited the rival’s publications in the general-category process but not the OBC process. The assertion that publications had never been submitted was therefore unacceptable, though a fresh committee could legitimately assess their compliance with current norms. (¶ 12)
- Assessment of publication marks belongs to academic experts. Judicial review could require reconsideration of an irregularity but could not substitute the court’s own award based on an earlier selection. The appellant’s publications also required consideration. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13)
- Separate interviews for open and OBC posts produced an inherently defective process. Open competition is available to all, with qualifying reserved-category candidates occupying open seats on merit subject to the relevant concession principles. A joint merit assessment was required. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
Result
The appeals were allowed with directions to constitute an Expert Committee, reconsider candidates’ publications and prepare a joint merit list for the 2011 recruitment. Existing appointments were protected except the appellant’s, which was made subject to the University’s revised decision. The Court expected completion within six months.