The selection process for public service positions must comply with established guidelines and norms, and candidates can challenge the legality of the process even after participating in it if there are significant deviations from those norms.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question provisional list of selected candidate to the post of Assistant Professor in Food Engineering in the respondent/University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad ('the University' for short) by Notification dtd. 12/7/2023.

2. Facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows:-

The 1st respondent/University issued a notification to fill up backlog posts in the cadres of Professor and Assistant Professor. The petitioner and the private respondent, herein finding themselves eligible, applied pursuant to the said notification. The petitioner and the 4th respondent were called for document verification by the University along with other applicants. On 27/6/2023, it appears, the 4th respondent was provisionally selected against which the petitioner raised his protest with regard to the Selection Committee deviating from the procedure stipulated and the norms that are necessary to be followed as depicted under the guidelines of the University Grants Commission ('UGC'). On 12/7/2023 a select list is notified to the cadre of Assistant Professor in Food Engineering whereby the 4th respondent emerges as the selected candidate. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court in the subject petition calling in question the said select list. The University undertook before this Court that no further action would be taken upon the select list and, therefore, the appointment order is not issued to the selected candidate - 4th respondent to the post of Assistant Professor, Food Engineering.

3. Heard Sri Tharanath Poojary, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Ramachandra A.Mali, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.3-State and Sri Prashant Mathapati, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

4. The learned senior counsel would contend with vehemence that the select list is prepared purely on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination, contrary to the notification so issued, as the score card method that was necessary to be adopted by the Selection Committee is given a go-bye. This has resulted in the most meritorious candidate - the petitioner losing the post to the 4th respondent who is less meritorious. The learned senior counsel would submit that the University will have to be directed to redo the entire procedure insofar as it concerns the subject post.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the University would submit that the action of the University cannot be found fault with. What is found in the Notification, is what is found in the Rules. This is a recruitment drive for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes only, and the Rules would stipulate the method of selection of candidates which the University has strictly complied with. The petitioner in the qualifying examination does not hold more merit than the 4th respondent. It is, therefore, he has called the action in question. He would seek dismissal of the petition. [

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that the petitioner has participated in the selection process and having participated he cannot turn around and question the process of selection. The learned counsel would further submit that the 4th respondent is more meritorious as the 4th respondent has secured 89.6% in the qualifying examination while the petitioner is at 85.40% and there is another person in between who scores 87.40% and has been placed in the reserve list. He would, therefore, submit that the petitioner cannot even thought of getting selected to the said post as he is less meritorious.

7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner as a rejoinder to the aforesaid submissions would contend that the Notification itself stipulated a particular manner of selection and the post carries UGC pay scales and, therefore, the selection has to be in con