Abidha Beegum v. Aligarh Muslim University

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2016/16TH ASHADHA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 37735 of 2015 (N)** ## **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **-----------** **ABIDHA BEEGUM V.S.** **ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,** **ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 340.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **------------** **1. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY** - **REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, U.P - 202002.** **2. THE REGISTRAR** - **ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP 202002.** **3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR** - **ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, U.P. - 202002.** **4. THE DIRECTOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM - 679 340.** **5. SRI.H.ABDUL AZEEZ** - **DIRECTOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 340.** **6. FAISAL AHMED KHAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 340.** **7. GALIB NASHTAR, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 340.** **....2** **WP(C).No. 37735 of 2015 (N)** **-2-** ## **8. SHANAWAS AHMED MALIK** - **ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 340.** ## **9. NASEEMA P.K** - **ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 340.** - **10.AUSAF AHAMAD MALIK ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, PIN-679 340.** - **11.MUHAMMED ABU SHAHID** - **ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, PIN-679 340.** - **12.AAMIR YOUSUF WAGAY** - **ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 340.** **R1&R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY R7-R9 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU JOHN R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.06.2016, THE COURT ON 07.07.2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 37735 of 2015 (N)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**|**PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**| |---|---| |**-----------------------**|| |**EXT.P1**|**COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 1.11.2010**| |**EXT.P2**|**COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 18.2.2011**| |**EXT.P3Q**|**COPY OF THE RENEWAL ORDER DATED 5.1.2012**| |**EXT.P4**|**COPY OF THE RENEWAL ORDER DATED 22.2.2013**| |**EXT.P5**|**COPY OF THE RENEWAL ORDER DATED JUNE, 2014**| |**EXT.P6**|**COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE**| ||**ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY TO THE SECRETARY OF UGC**| |**EXT.P7**|**COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART**| |**EXT.P7(a)**|**COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 15.6.2010 TOGETHER WITH OVERING**| ||**LETTER DTED 21.6.2010**| |**EXT.P8**|**COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.3.2014 FROM THE UGC TO**| ||**THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY**| |**EXT.P9**|**COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 13.7.2015**| |**EXT.P10**|**COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 15.7.2015**| |**EXT.P11**|**COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.7.2015**| |**EXT.P12**|**COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1.12.2015**| |**EXT.P13**|**COPY FO THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.5.2015**| |**EXT.P14**|**COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 9.12.2015**| |**EXT.P15**|**COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 11.4.2011**| |**EXT.P16**|**COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 22.10.2014**| |**EXT.P17**|**COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE**| ||**EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (NO.680) HELD ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2014**| |**EXT.P18**|**COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE**| ||**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.**| |**EXT.P19**|**COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE**| ||**EXECUTIVE COUNCIL HELD ON 16.03.1991.**| |**EXT.P20**|**COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT SHOWING THE TOTAL MARKS**| ||**AND THE TABLE SHOWING THE ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE**| ||**PERSONS.**| |**EXT.P21**|**COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE**| ||**EXECUTIVE COUNCIL HELD ON 07.09.2006.**| |**EXT.P22**|**COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.12.2015.**| ## **WP(C).No. 37735 of 2015 (N)** ## **----------------------------** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------EXT.R1(a) RELEVANT PORTION OF SECTION 29(b) OF THE ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ACT EXT.R1(b) COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC) DATED 18.03.2014. EXT.R1(c) RELEVANT PAGE CONTAINED IN SECTION 27 OF THE AMU ACT EXT.R1(d) COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER DATED 15.12.2015** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** **JJJ** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** -----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 37735 of 2015 (N) -----------------------------------------Dated: 7[th] July, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is aggrieved with the University; having denied her regularisation in service and also declined her selection conducted, pursuant to Ext.P10. The petitioner seeks one post of Assistant Professor (Law) in the Malappuram Centre of the respondent University, either by regularisation of her contractual appointment or on the entitlement to be selected pursuant to Ext.P10 notification. 2. The brief facts to be noticed are that by Ext.P1 dated 01.11.2010, the respondent University had invited applications for appointment on contractual basis inter alia to the post of Assistant Professor (Law). The petitioner applied and was offered such **-2-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** employment for a period of one year as per Ext.P2. The contractual period of the petitioner was extended, among others, by Exts.P3 to P5. The petitioner contends that there was a promise of regularisation made as per Ext.P6. The petitioner having been appointed by a General Selection Committee, as per the Aligarh Muslim University Act XL of 1920, the petitioner could be granted regularisation. The petitioner had, in fact, declined an offer for an appointment to a Government Law College, as offered by Ext.P7, in the hope of being regularised. There were other persons appointed on contract and regularised subsequently, as is evident from Exts.P16 and P18, which is on the basis of Ext.P19 decision of the University. The petitioner having been denied regularisation, when similarly placed persons were granted regularisation, results in the petitioner having been discriminated. The petitioner has been **-3-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** arbitrarily denied regularisation, despite she being entitled to it and such action being enabled by decisions of the University itself; are in a nutshell, the argument. 3. The further contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the selection made was bad. The procedure followed would definitely indicate the petitioner having been illegally excluded from appointment. The petitioner's specific contention is that as per Ext.P12, the Director, the 5[th] respondent herein, attempted to interfere with the selection. By Ext.P12, four persons were sought to be interviewed, despite they having not been short-listed, as was required under Ext.P10. The persons so directed to be included by the Director were not competent to be called for interview since they did not satisfy the two year experience as Guest Faculty or Assistant Professor in the respondent University. This was a pre-condition **-4-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** for the Vice Chancellor to exercise discretion. The 9[th] respondent herein, who was so recommended in Ext.P12, had been appointed by the University to one notified post, along with respondents 7 and 8, to the other two posts. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University would contend that the claim for regularisation cannot, at all, be accepted since the procedure followed for appointment to permanent posts and temporary posts is by an interview conducted by the General Selection Committee as per Statute 29(2) (a) and (b) of the Statutes of the University scheduled in the Aligarh Muslim University Act XL of 1920. It is also contended that no ground of discrimination could be urged since Ext. P16 was only on account of the decision at Ext.P19. By the time the petitioner was appointed, i.e., in the year 2011, the decision, based on ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** **-5-** which the resolution was taken at Ext.P17, was repealed by the University in 2008. Though the specific decision is not placed on record, the University has filed an affidavit, which was later amended; pointing out the resolution at Ext.P19 having been rescinded in 2008. 5. It is also contended that there can be no ground of a promise held out, as urged by the petitioner, on Ext.P6. Ext.P6 is a communication issued by the Registrar of the University to the U.G.C., wherein they had suggested that when posts are sanctioned, the persons working on contractual or ad hoc basis can be regularised. The U.G.C. has specifically declined the same as per Ext.P8 and directed the University to fill up the posts after giving wide publicity through advertisements. The learned Standing Counsel also relies on **Vinod v. State of Kerala - 1998 KHC 115** , **Shajan Abraham v. State** ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** **-6-** **of Kerala - 1998 KHC 338** , to urge that contractual appointments seize on the expiry of the specific period and cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. **Surendra Prasad Tewari v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others - 2006 KHC 126** is relied on to argue that regularisation of ad hoc appointments cannot be ordered by Courts, especially when appointments are to public offices and the initial appointment itself is against the constitutional scheme. 6. The 5[th] respondent denies the allegations of bias raised against him. The 5[th] respondent claims to have merely recommended the names of four faculty members, as seen from Ext.P12. It was for the Vice Chancellor, to have accepted such recommendation or rejected it. The Vice Chancellor also has rejected the recommendation with respect to one of the persons in ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** **-7-** Ext.P12, for reason of that candidate having not completed a full academic year in the University. With respect to others they had been working in the University for more than one and a half years and, hence, the Vice Chancellor exercised a discretion in their favour. No bias can be alleged against him nor can a fault found on the Vice Chancellor having exercised the discretion in favour of respondents 9 to 11, is the argument. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for respondents 7, 8 and 9 would contend that the petitioner could not claim any appointment over respondents 7 and 8, since, they, even according to the University, were short listed along with the petitioner. The selection committee had found out the better suited; to occupy the position. The petitioner and many others were excluded on a comparative assessment of ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** **-8-** merit and the petitioner's contractual/temporary position in the faculty cannot confer any preferential claim on her to be selected. As for the 9[th] respondent, it is submitted that the Vice Chancellor had properly exercised the discretion in her favour and the learned Counsel would also point out that if she is sent out of employment, she would be unable to look for another, for reason of she being over aged. 8. Respondents 7 to 9 also contend that the petitioner having not challenged her appointment on a temporary basis, cannot, now, turn around and claim regularisation. As to the selection process, it is submitted that the petitioner, with open eyes, participated in the selection, made an application, was shortlisted and called for interview, in which she also attended. Only after the interview, the petitioner turned around to challenge the selection as such, which **-9-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** cannot be permitted as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Siraj K.H. v. High Court of Kerala** **- ILR 2006 (2) Kerala 561 (SC)** . The respondents would also contend that the writ petition itself is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since, the Aligarh Muslim University would not be amenable to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 9. At the outset it is to be noticed that the contention with respect to the maintainability has already been answered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.9056/2015 by judgment dated 15.01.2016; against the very same University. In such circumstance, following the said judgment this Court would not venture to consider that aspect again. 10. The first question to be dealt with is the regularisation claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner, admittedly, was appointed on a contractual basis and **-10-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** the contract period was extended for various periods and she had been continued so in the Malappuram Centre of the respondent University. The petitioner cannot claim any promise having been held out to her as per Ext.P6, since, Ext.P6 is a communication addressed by the University to the U.G.C. If at all, the petitioner had information of such a communication, it could only be taken as a suggestion of the University to adjust equities insofar as persons appointed to the temporary posts, before the posts were actually sanctioned by the UG.C. It is brought on record, that the U.G.C. had specifically directed the University to fill up the permanent posts after giving wide publicity through advertisements. When the permanent posts were sanctioned as per Ext.P8, the University could not have diverted from the specific directions issued. ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** **-11-** 11. True, the petitioner had given up another employment for continuing in the respondent University on the basis of an assumed promise, which cannot, on that sole basis result in the promise being substantiated. The decision to give up another employment can be viewed by this Court only as an informed decision. This Court has also found that there was no promise as such held out. The discrimination urged also falls to the ground since on a selection being notified as per Ext.P10, if the petitioner had a claim for regularisation, she should have approached this Court immediately. The petitioner, as was pointed out by the respondents, applied under the notification, was shortlisted, called for interview, participated in the interview and then turned around to claim regularisation. This cannot be permitted, as has been held in **Siraj K.H.** (supra). ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** **-12-** 12. The petitioner also urges the ground on the strength of Ext.P22. Ext.P22 only permitted continuance of persons who are appointed in contractual posts, again to be continued on contractual terms, despite the fact that they had not appeared before the General Selection Committee. This would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner, since, here, the petitioner seeks an appointment to a permanent post and not to a contractual post. 13. It is an admitted fact that the persons who were recommended by Ext.P12, did not have the two year experience in the University. They were admittedly not short-listed, which alone would enable participation in the interview. In such circumstance, this Court called for the files leading to the selection process, which has been made available. As per the extant procedure of 1:3 ratio applied for selection, the ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** **-13-** University had short-listed 15 candidates as against the three vacancies of Assistant Professor (Law) in Malappuram Centre. The files reveal that the candidates, who applied, were evaluated and were shortlisted on the basis of the points indicated in the list prepared. Of the 15 short-listed candidates, the petitioner and respondents 6 to 8 were faculty working at the Malappuram Centre of the University. Respondents 9 to 11 reached the interview on the basis of the recommendation made by the Director. The 12[th] respondent was not called for the interview. The question posed is as to whether, the Vice Chancellor could have invoked discretion, to call these four candidates to the interview; when they lacked the required two year's experience in the University; on a mere recommendation made by the Director. ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** **-14-** 14. The selection procedure as such; has been closely scrutinized by this Court. As noticed earlier, up to the short listing, things were transparent insofar as the various persons who had applied and short listed were arranged in the order of the ranks obtained by them, on the basis of the points scored on initial scrutiny. Ext.P10 notification and the application form at Ext.P11 indicate that on the applications being received by the University, a short listing would be made and the short listing would be of five times the vacancies available. Only those short listed candidates would be entitled to be called for the interview. The contention raised by the 5[th] respondent and the other respondents who were recommended by the 5[th] respondent is that the Vice Chancellor has a discretion to call any applicant for interview. **-15-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** 15. The discretion conferred on the Vice Chancellor is as per Ext.P11 notification itself, which in Appendix B reads as follows: “The Guest Faculties and the Assistant Professors already working in AMU and with an experience of at least two academic years of working at AMU may be called for interview over and above the short listed candidates at the discretion of the Vice-chancellor.” Hence, only those persons who had at least two academic years experience in the University could have been called for the interview; despite they being not short listed. The discretion so conferred on the Vice Chancellor is not absolutely unfettered and is regulated by the experience stipulated thereunder. Only those persons who satisfy the experience could have been validly called for the interview, even if they were not **-16-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** short listed; by a valid exercise of discretion. 16. It is an admitted fact that none of the persons recommended in Ext.P12 had the two year experience. In such circumstance, the discretion exercised by the Vice Chancellor, insofar as calling respondents 9 to 11 for the interview, is flawed. Their consideration by the Selection Committee and the placement of the 9[th] respondent among the three selected candidates and the other two as wait listed, has to be set aside. The respondent University, in that circumstance, was specifically directed to produce the records of the Selection Committee. 17. The respondent University, through its Registrar, has filed an additional counter affidavit dated 09.06.2016 contending that the selection committee merely forwarded the names of the persons selected, on the basis of the marks awarded on a scale of 10. It is **-17-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** also averred that there is no practice of keeping any separate mark sheets by the selection committee. Ext.R1(d) is said to be the minutes of the selection committee, which was forwarded to the University. This Court cannot, but, express displeasure in the University having not maintained the records of a selection conducted, to a public post; frustrating any scrutiny by courts of law. 18. It is also to be specifically observed that, till the of candidates there was a short listing very transparent procedure adopted by the University. The records reveal that even the short listed candidates were awarded points, presumably on a scrutiny of their applications, qualifications and experience, and listed according to the order of their rank. Fifteen persons were short listed as against the three vacancies of Assistant Professor (Law). The Registrar, in his ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** **-18-** affidavit, has laboured, to point out to this Court that there were eight persons in the Selection Committee and that the Director would only be one of the persons entitled to evaluate the candidates and, if at all, there was any bias on the part of the Director, that would not have influenced the over all selection. However, the fact that the University is unable to place on record any files relating to the manner in which the Selection Committee proceeded with the selection; casts a shadow of doubt on the selections made. 19. The University cannot take a stand that they or the Committee appointed by them do not have the practice of keeping the mark sheets based on which selection is conducted. When selection is made to the University, which is creature of a Statute, and gives the post to which appointment is made, the flavour of a public office; it is incumbent upon the organisation to **-19-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** ensure transparency and also substantiate the veracity of such selection, if challenged in a court of law. The affidavit filed insofar as asserting that the selection committee does not maintain any records as to the manner in which the selection is conducted and marks awarded and also does not maintain the mark sheets, is, to say the least, not expected of a body like the respondent University. 20. In such circumstance, this Court cannot, but, find that the selection carried on was not proper. But, however, there is no challenge to the procedure followed and the ground raised is only of ineligible persons having been included in the selection process, by one of the candidates appearing in the selection process, i.e., the petitioner herein. This Court would not in such circumstance unsettle the entire selection carried on. However, as held by this Court, respondents ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** **-20-** 9 to 11 were not entitled to be called for the interview and their placement in the list of candidates recommended for appointment and wait-listed, has to be interfered with. The recommendation of the Selection Committee, as available from Ext.R1(d), is as follows: “The Committee has recommended the following candidates for appointment as Assistant Professor in Law at Malappuram Centre AMU, against 03 vacancies as advertised. 1.Mrs.Naseema P.K. } Recommended for appointment as 2.Mr. Shahnawaz Ahmed Malik } Assistant Professor Law at AMU 3.Mr. Ghalib Nashter } Centre, Malappuram on a probation of one year Name(s) on waiting list, in order of merit, in case anyone of the aforementioned candidate fails to join within specified period: 1. Mr. Mohammad Abu Shahid 2. Mr.Ausaf Ahmad Malik 3. Mr.Faisal Ahmed Khan” **-21-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** 21. The 9[th] respondent, who has been recommended for appointment, and respondents 10 and 11 who are wait-listed are declared as 'not entitled' to be so recommended for reason of their ineligibility to appear for the interview; having not been short listed and not having the requisite experience as stipulated in Ext.P10 notification. Respondents 9 to 11 would have to be removed from the list of selected candidates. This leaves the Court with the 6[th] respondent, who has been wait-listed. 22. No ground of ineligibility is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner against the 6[th] respondent. The petitioner has a case that she has a higher entitlement for being short listed, which, according to her, is evident from the points awarded to the short listed candidates. The petitioner has obtained 102.28 marks while the 6[th] respondent has obtained **-22-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** only 92.45 marks. The University is unable to inform this Court as to what were the marks obtained by the petitioner and Faizal Ahmed Khan (the 6[th] respondent), in a scale of 10, at the final selection conducted by the Selection Committee. The 6[th] respondent, though impleaded, was not served with notice. Though notice was sent to the 6[th] respondent, it was returned with the endorsement 'addressee left'. The petitioner has not taken any steps to serve notice on the 6[th] respondent. The decision of this Court cannot, hence, bind the 6[th] respondent; but that need not detain this Court from arriving at a decision insofar as the claim raised by the petitioner and resisted by the contesting respondents herein. It is also to be noticed that the 6[th] respondent has not independently challenged the selection already made. **-23-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** 23. In such circumstance, this Court has to look at the procedure to be followed which is evident from Ext.P15 Gazette notification Appendix-III Table-II(c). The Selection Committee criteria/weightages on a total scale of 100 is divided in the following manner: “a) Academic Record and Research Performance (50%) b) Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills (30%) c) Interview performance (20%)” 24. It is admitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the University that 'a' and 'b'; would be the criteria for short listing the candidates. Hence, the same has to be added to the marks received at the interview. Clauses 'a' and 'b' of Appendix-III, as noticed above, are applicable to the direct recruitment of Assistant Professors. The respondents 7 and 8, who are selected along with the 9[th] respondent and appointed, obtained **-24-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** respectively 98.42 and 92.43 marks in the selection for shortlisting. The petitioner obtained 102.28 marks and the list of shortlisted candidates show that she was specifically indicated as 'Appointed through G.S.C' ie: through General Selection Committee. The 6[th] respondent obtained 92.45 far below the points obtained by the petitioner. Considering the fact that the evaluation at the interview was on a scale of 10, there is absolutely no way the 6[th] respondent could have overtaken the petitioner in the interview. The difference in the score obtained by the petitioner and that of the 6[th] respondent is almost 10, at the stage of short listing. Even if the petitioner received only one mark in the interview and the 6[th] respondent the full 10 marks, the petitioner would be ahead of the 6[th] respondent. **-25-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 37735/2015** 25. In such circumstances the petitioner shall be appointed as Assistant Professor (Law), in the place of the 9[th] respondent. The order shall be issued within a period of 2 weeks from today and the petitioner shall be entitled to be treated as having been regularly appointed from the day on which respondents 7 and 8 were appointed as per the decision of the Selection Committee. The writ petition is allowed setting aside the appointment of the 9[th] respondent and directing appointment of the petitioner to that post. The parties shall suffer their respective costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE sp/jjj 16/6/16