Point of Law : A Litigant should not only get justice but it has to be timely as well which is required for the continued confidence of the citizenry in the justice delivery system.

JUDGMENT :

Mohammed Nias. C.P, J.

The unsuccessful petitioner, who challenged the appointment of the 4th respondent to the post of Assistant Director in the Department of Physical Education in the University of Kerala on deputation basis, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification is the appellant. The appellant as well as the 4th respondent were interviewed on 14.12.2017 by the Selection Committee. The 4th respondent was selected on the basis of obtaining 1.9 marks more than the writ petitioner. The marks given under the various heads to the seven candidates who participated in the selection process are extracted below:-

“Selection to the post of Assistant Director Department of Physical Education, on Deputation Date of Interview : 14th December 2017 Notification No.Ad.Dl.I.DPE/43722/2017 dated 16.08.2017

2. The petitioner questions the selection on the specific allegation that the academic qualification and experience of the petitioner was ignored while selecting the 4th respondent and in spite of giving 13 marks more in the interview to the 4th respondent, there is a difference of only 1.9 marks more to the 4th respondent which led to her selection. The excessive award of marks in the interview according to the petitioner is a highly arbitrary action. The prescription with regard to the research publication, paper presentation, academic experience, which ought to have been the main criteria for the selection going by the norms of the University Grants Commission (UGC) were all overlooked in the selection process.

3. The University contended that the Selection Committee was constituted as per the UGC guidelines and the marks were also awarded as per the same, and therefore, there is no illegality in the selection and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. The 4th respondent did not enter appearance despite service of notice in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal.

5. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter dismissed the writ petition on the solitary ground that the appellant having participated in the selection process was estopped from challenging the selection process relying on the judgment in D.Saroja Kumari v. R.Helen Thilakom and Others [(2017) 9 SCC 478].

6. We have heard the learned senior counsel Sri.George Poonthottam, assisted by Sri.A.L.Navaneeth Krishnan for the appellant and Sri.Thomas Abraham, the learned standing Counsel for the respondent-university.

7. Before us, the learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge is wrong in as much as the challenge to the award of marks in the interview, borne out from Ext.P7, was not considered at all by the learned Single Judge and a mere glance of the same would have revealed the favouritism shown to the 4th respondent. When the entire process was vitiated by the arbitrariness and favouritism, such selection ought to have been interfered with. Despite the appellant getting more marks under the head for the academic records and research performance, only due to the excessive marks for the interview awarded to the 4th respondent, she was favoured and selected.

8. The learned counsel for the University reiterated before us that the selection was conducted in accordance with the UGC guidelines and no ill