Selection decisions must be justified and not arbitrary, ensuring fairness in administrative processes.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

'It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record relating to the case of the Petitioners and after perusing the same may be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition:-

A. By appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in pursuance to advertisement No.02\MNIT\ESTT\2014 (Annexure-1).

B. Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.'

2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement (Annx.1) inviting applications for appointment on various posts including the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical), the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). It is not in dispute that the petitioner qualified first three stages i.e. (i) Screening Test (ii) Subjective Test and (iii) Trade Test and he was the single candidate in the interview held for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). However, his candidature was rejected by the respondents due to 'Not Found Suitable.'

3. Grievance of the petitioner by filing the present writ petition is that the petitioner was the only candidate who after qualifying the first three stages reached to the stage of interview and he being the single candidate, he ought to have been considered for appointment for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical).

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents in an arbitrary manner have rejected the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) despite the fact that the petitioner has cleared all the first three stages and the petitioner was the only candidate in the interview, as such should have been considered for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). Counsel further submits that while taking decision of rejecting his candidature for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical), no reasonable justification has been assigned by the respondents, which shows their arbitrary exercise of power.

5. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Valsala Kumari Devi M. Vs. Director, Higher Secondary Education & Ors. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 533 decided on 25.09.2007 where in para 11 it has been held as under:-

'11) The expression "subject to seniority and suitability" occurring in G.O. dated 27.6.1990 does not mean the comparative assessment of suitability and it only means the suitability for the particular post and the suitability is related to the prescribed qualification and requisite experience. In view of the distinction between the appointment by promotion from General Education Subordinate Service and an appointment to the 75% vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment, we are of the view that the finding arrived at by the Director, Higher Secondary School, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala that seniority is not the criterion for 'appointment by promotion to HSST' is erroneous and is not in terms of the Government Orders referred to above. Though in the order, it is stated that the 5th respondent is more suitable than the appellant, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it has not been shown or indicated the reasons or grounds for arriving such decision that the 5th respondent was found more suitable than the appellant for the post. We are also in agreement with the contention that the Director has mechanically accepted the decision of the Selection Committee that the 5th respondent is more suitable than the appellant without reference to selection for appointment by promotion to HSST against 25% quota ear-marked for qualified High School Assistants. We are of the view that the Director has committed an illegality in upholding th