JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. (Oral)

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari setting aside the final result dated 18.09.2020 (Annexure P-5), for the post of Assistant Director (Technical)/Principal, Industrial Training Institute Group A Junior.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against advertisement No.3(5) of 2017 dated 07.12.2017, the petitioner had applied for the aforesaid posts, under Scheduled Caste (SC) Category; that the petitioner appeared for the written examination on 11.08.2020; that the result was declared on 27.08.2020; that the candidates seven times the posts, in each category, including the petitioner, were called for the documentation and that the petitioner was called for the interview on 03.09.2020.

3. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has pointed out that the petitioner along with respondents No.4 and 5 had appeared in the recruitment process, for the posts in question; that they were called for the documentation and thereafter for interview as well by the Department; that, it was found that only respondents No.4 and 5 possessed the requisite qualification and accordingly, they were declared successful under their respective catogeries; that the petitioner had secured 55.312 marks under SC Category and that the last selected candidate under the said Category had secured 64.562 marks. She further submits that once the petitioner had participated in the entire recruitment process, he cannot turn around to challenge the same and that too, after having been declared unsuccessful.

4. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for respondent No.3 relies upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and others , 2007 (8) SCC 644 and Dr. Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and others , 2010 (8) SCC 372 .

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. As noticed above, the petitioner had taken part in the entire recruitment process and after due consideration, he was not able to make the grade.

7. In Dr. Basavaiah's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

"45. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fide has been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.

46. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has ignored the consistent legal position. They were expected to abide by the discipline of the precedents of the courts. Consequently, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court.

47. The University of Mysore, respondent herein, is directed to give regular pay-scale to the appellants from 1st August, 2010. To avoid any further litigation, we may make it clear that the appellants would not be entitled to claim any arrears or benefits for the past period.

48. The appeals are allowed, but, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs."

8. In Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

'8. As n