Judicial review of recruitment processes is limited, and completed selections should not be unsettled without substantial proof of wrongful practices or errors.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Under assail is the writ order dated 29.10.2020 passed in W.P.No.11070 of 2015. Three intra-Court appeals have been instituted by the writ petitioner, Teachers Recruitment Board and the 3^rd respondent in the writ petition. All the parties to the writ petition have preferred appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent on the ground that the concluding paragraph of the judgment, if implemented would unsettled the process of selection already completed long before.

2. Recruitment notification was issued on 28.05.2013 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Government Arts and Science College for the year 2012. The post shall be filled up on the basis of weightage marks awarded for

(a) Teaching experience

(b) Higher Education Qualification in the subject and

(c) Marks awarded in the Interview duly following communal reservation in force.

3. As per the notification, special categories such as physically challenged, visually impaired and hearing impaired shall be provided with reservation of 1% each as per the Government Orders.

4. The appellant in W.A.No.1082/2020 Mr.M.Shibikumaran was one among the candidates participated in the process of selection for the post of Assistant Professor in History under physically challenged category. He belongs to Backward Community. He was called for certificate verification and awarded 5 marks for the same. The Teachers Recruitment Board shortlisted candidates at the rate of 1:5 basis on the weightage mark secured, followed by the communal reservation. The name of Mr.M.Shibikumaran was not found in the provisional selection list called for interview since marks secured by him did not reach selection zone for interview. Mr.M.Shibikumaran filed W.P.No.30757/2014 seeking a direction for inclusion of his name in the provisional list of candidates in the oral interview. Pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court, he was called for interview on 28.11.2024. The selection committee awarded 6 marks. Thus, Mr.M.Shibikumaran secured 11 marks (5+6). While the selection list was drawn, marks scored by Mr.M.Shibikumaran did not reach the selection zone and he was not selected.

5. As far as Mr.Alexander, appellant in W.A.No.1080/2020 is concerned, he was provisionally selected under the category of Backward Class (General) Tamil Medium (PSTM). He secured 12 marks, which is the cut off marks for selection in the Backward Class, Tamil Medium candidates. His selection was based on preferential basis. He was also called for the interview on 25.03.2015. Admittedly, the provisional selection list was published on 31.03.2015.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.G.Sankaran appearing on behalf of Mr.M.Shibikumaran in W.A.No.1080/2020 would mainly contend that the interview was conducted separately for Mr.Alexander and suspicious circumstances and the marks awarded in the oral interview was considered by the Writ Court for allowing the writ petition. Since the Writ Court has directed to redo the exercise of selection in respect of all candidates, the writ petitioner Mr.M.Shibikumaran preferred writ appeal. He would submit that the merit list was published on 02.12.2014 and marks were disclosed. Therefore, there is a possibility of extraneous consideration as far as Mr.Alexander is concerned, since his oral interview was conducted on 25.03.2015.

7. Mr.Kamadevan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr.Alexander would submit that Mr.Alexander served as PG Assistant for about 4 years in Higher Secondary School and