Point of law: “Research Committee” provide that one of its members shall be a subject expert, namely Dean of concerned discipline, his or her absence from Interview process certainly causes serious concern.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners say that they have applied to the 1st respondent – “Kerala Kalamandalam (Deemed to be) University for Art and Culture” ('Kerala Kalamandalam' for short), for being directly admitted to the PhD course in Cultural Studies and had taken part in the selection process. They say that even though each of them scored very high marks in the written test, they were deliberately awarded exiguously low marks in the interview and that this shows a design of being deliberately denied the seats, to favour the party respondents.

2. Sri.N.M.Madhu – learned counsel for the petitioners, explained his clients' case, saying that the marks awarded to them, as also the party respondents, would make the position absolutely clear, without requirement of any further expatiation. His submissions in this regard can be tabulated as under:

3. Sri.N.M.Madhu thus submitted that it is manifest that marks in interview were awarded to his clients deliberately low, so as to exclude them from the purview of consideration, solely to favour the party respondents.

4. Sri.N.M.Madhu, thereafter added to his submissions saying that, going by the Tabulation of the selection process produced on record by the Kerala Kalamandalam, along with their Memo dated 11.08.2022, only two members of the “Research Committee” had participated in the interview. He submitted that this is flagrantly in violation of the Prospectus published by them, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P1, which makes it limpid that the admission shall be on the basis of an entrance examination and an interview, conducted by the “Research Committee”. He then took me to Ext.R1(e), produced by the Kerala Kalamandalam, to show me that the “Research Committee” has five members, one of whom is the Dean of the respective subject, ex-officio. He thus argued that since the interview in this case was conducted by two members of the “Research Committee”, without the subject expert being on board, it is clear that it was vitiated; and consequently that his clients were entitled to be considered for the seats, based on their marks in the written test.

5. In response, however, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Kalamandalam, submitted that there is no Rule or Regulation applicable mandating that every member of the “Research Committee” should participate in the interview. He further argued that there is no quorum fixed for the “Research Committee” and therefore, that even one among them could act as such; adding that, in the case at hand, there were two members who conducted the interview. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

6. Pertinently, Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy – learned Standing Counsel for the University Grants Commission (UGC), submitted that there are no Regulations published by his client mandating an institution like Kerala Kalamandalam to conduct their selection process in a particular manner. He submitted that the only Regulation which is applicable is the “UGC Institutions (Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2016” (hereinafter referred to as the UGC Regulations, 2016), which, through Regulation 6.5(vi) thereof, provides that the process of admission and selection of eligible candidates, applying for admission, shall be as stipulated by the Institution in their Prospectus. He submitted that, therefore, the UGC has no comment to make