Point of Law: Relaxation in age does not in any manner upset “level playing field”. It is not possible to accept submission of learned counsel for appellants that relaxation in age or concession in fee would in any manner be infringement of Article 16(1) of Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

Both the above appeals arise from the judgment in W.P. (C) No.1861 of 2020 and they are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. Among the appeals, W.A.No.957 of 2022 is by the petitioner in the writ petition and W.A.No.1071 of 2022 is by the second respondent in the writ petition. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment for convenience, as they appear in the writ petition.

2. The matter relates to selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the School of Gandhian Thought and Development Studies (the School) under the Mahatma Gandhi University (the University).

3. Ext.P1 is the notification issued by the University for the selection. In terms of the notification, out of the three vacancies, two were reserved for candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes and one for candidates belonging to General Category. The petitioner as also the second respondent applied for selection pursuant to Ext.P1 notification against the vacancy earmarked for General Category candidates. It is stated that the University evolved a scheme for evaluation of the merits of the candidates in which 20 marks were set apart for the interview and 80 marks for different other criteria. The petitioner who secured second rank in the selection was awarded 46.61 marks out of 100 and the second respondent who secured first rank in the selection was awarded 49.40 marks out of 100. The second respondent was consequently selected and appointed. The selection and appointment of the second respondent were impugned in the writ petition.

4. In terms of the scheme evolved for evaluation of the merits of the candidates, candidates holding PhD are entitled to six marks. Similarly, in terms of the said scheme, candidates who have secured awards from academic bodies are entitled to two marks. Even though the petitioner is a Post Graduate in Economics with M.Phil. in Development Studies (Economics) and PhD in Economics, it was alleged by the petitioner that she was not awarded any marks for her Ph.D. Similarly, it was alleged by the petitioner that although she was awarded Dr.S.Radhakrishanan Post Doctoral Fellowship in Economics by the University Grants Commission (the UGC), which is a prestigious award in the academic circles, she was not awarded any marks for having secured the said award. It was further alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that the second respondent, on the other hand, was awarded marks under different heads which she is not entitled to. It was specifically pleaded by the petitioner in the writ petition that the second respondent was awarded six marks for her PhD which should not have been taken into account under the scheme of evaluation of merits since it is not a PhD in any of the subjects indicated in the notification. The petitioner has stated that even though the second respondent claimed to have made four research publications, one international, two national and one local, none of those are publications made in UGC approved journals, which is a mandatory prerequisite for awarding marks. Nevertheless, it was alleged that the second respondent has been awarded eight marks for research publications. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition, therefore, was that the petitioner should have been awarded 54.61 marks, the second respondent should have been awarded only 35.40 marks and the second respondent ought not have, therefore, been appointed. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for a direction to the University to appoint her as Assistant Professor pursuant to Ext.P1 notification against the vacancy notified for General Category candidates, after setting aside the selection and appointment of the second respondent.

5. A counter affidavit was filed by the University in the writ petition. As regards the claim made by the petitioner that she should have been awarded six marks for her PhD, the stand taken by the University is that the qualification criteria pre