K. Surendra Mohan, J.

1. The third respondent in W.P.(C) No. 36354/2015 is in appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14/11/2016. The first respondent herein is the writ petitioner. He had filed the writ petition challenging Ext. P5 Rank list as well as Ext. P8 order by which the appellant herein was appointed as an Assistant Professor in Hindi. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned proceedings and has directed the second respondent University to conduct a fresh selection. The dispute arose in the following facts and circumstances. As per Ext. P2 notification dated 24/04/2013, applications were invited from qualified members belonging to Scheduled Tribes for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Hindi. The notification was later on re-issued on 06/02/2015. The appellant, respondents 1, 4, 5 and 6, had submitted applications in response to the said notification. An interview was conducted and Ext. P5 Rank list was published wherein the first respondent was rank No. 1, the fourth respondent rank No. 2, and the fifth respondent rank No. 3. On the basis of the ranking, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Professor, as per Ext. P8 order. The first respondent challenged the rank list as well as Ext. P8 order of appointment by filing W.P.(C) No. 36354/2015. Though the first respondent had also participated in the interview, he was not ranked as per Ext. P5. According to him, the candidates who were so ranked are persons hailing from other states and are not entitled to claim the benefit of the reservation that is meant to be extended only to persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribes of Kerala. In fact, the first respondent had submitted Ext. P7 representation on 16/10/2017 pointing out the infirmities in ranking persons from outside the State as per Ext. P5. However, there was no action. It was in the said circumstances that the writ petition was filed.

2. The case of the first respondent was that the reservation that is provided to members belonging to Scheduled Tribes were available only to those persons who belong to the Scheduled Tribes of the State of Kerala. Persons belonging to other States were not entitled to claim the said benefit on the basis of their status as members of a Scheduled Tribe of their parent State.

3. The contentions of the first respondent were opposed by the appellant as well as the second respondent, University. The other respondents did not appear or contest the matter. A statement as well as a counter affidavit were filed on behalf of the University. The stand of the University was that, the selection was conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee. It was on the basis of the selection process that Ext. P5 Rank list was finalised. Reliance was placed on Ext. R1(a) which showed the marks obtained by the respective candidates at the interview to contend that the appellant was the candidate who had scored the maximum marks in the selection process. The first respondent had performed badly at the interview, it was contended.

4. The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions, found that the notification entitled only candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes of Kerala to participate in the selection process. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court on the point, the learned Single Judge found that the selection was bad and set aside the same allowing the writ petition. The University has been directed to carry out a fresh selection for filling up the vacancies. It is aggrieved by the said judgment, that the third respondent has filed this appeal.

5. According to Senior Counsel Sri. Bechu Kurian Thomas, Ext. P2 notification was issued in terms of the UGC regulations that stipulate appointment to the posts of "Assistant Professors", "Associate Processors" and "Professors" on the basis of merit alone. In order to attract the best candidates the notification