A candidate participating in a selection process cannot challenge it based on eligibility criteria if he does not succeed in the outcome.

ORDER :

T. Vinod Kumar, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 2, 3 and 5 and the learned counsels for respondents 4 and 6 and perused the records.

2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner, is that the 1^st respondent issued an advertisement on 03.10.2016 to fill up vacancies in the post of Assistant Professor in the various faculties, which inter alia included the post of Assistant Professor in Economics; that in all three posts of Assistant Professor in Economics were to be filled with candidates under General Turn-1, Most Backward Class-1 and Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe-1; that the petitioner being a post graduate i.e., M.A. in Economics, having qualified in the year 2003 and having obtained a Ph.D. in the year 2012, being fully eligible, submitted his application for the post of Assistant Professor in Economics in respect of vacancy reserved for SC / ST category.

2.1. The petitioner further contended that as per the advertisement issued by the 1^st respondent, in order to be eligible to apply for the aforesaid vacancies, a P.G. degree in the relevant subject with 55% and above, along with a Ph.D. in the relevant subject, was a precondition; that he having secured 67% in M.A. Economics and also possessing Ph.D., applied for the aforesaid post and was hopeful of being selected against the reserved vacancy.

2.2. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 6^th respondent did not meet the eligibility criteria prescribed i.e., 55% in P.G. degree inasmuch as the said respondent had secured only 54% and thus is not eligible to apply; and that despite the same, the 6^th respondent not only applied for the aforesaid vacancy but was also selected and appointed by the 1^st respondent against the vacancy reserved for SC Category, for which the petitioner was competing for being selected.

2.3. It is the further case of the petitioner that since, the notification prescribed the minimum eligibility criteria as 55%, the respondents could not and ought not have accepted the application of the 6^th respondent at the first instance, much less called him for the interview and selecting him thereafter.

2.4. It is also contended by the petitioner that the 1^st respondent, while conducting interviews for selecting candidates to fill up the aforesaid vacancies, conducted interviews separately for each category, i.e., to fill up the vacancies under G.T., MBC and SC/ST and as such, instead of conducting a common interview for all the candidates and selecting the candidates against the respective vacancies based on merit in the interview, the respondents, by resorting to separate selection for each category, indulged in manipulation by interchanging candidate whom they intended to appoint in the said vacancies.

2.5. It is also contended by the petitioner that since, the respondents sought to fill up the vacancies solely by means of conducting interview, they were required to conduct one common interview for all candidates and ought to have prepared a consolidated merit list based on the marks secured in the interview, from amongst the candidates who had cleared interview by appointing the candidate who secured the highest marks under the General Turn and thereafter, filled up the vacancies under MBC and SC / ST Categories on the basis of merit from and among the candidates belonging to the respective categories; that the respondents without following the selection process as stated above, prepared the list for recruitment under the General Turn by including the name of the 6^th responden