Interview-only selection valid for senior academic posts if compliant with per-vacancy screening rules; uniform expert evaluation indicates consensus, not bias.

O R D E R

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

1.The sole applicant challenges the inclusion of respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in Annexure A1 rank 1st to the post of Assistant Professor, Neurology Department, by the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as “the Institute” for brevity) and the selection process leading to it, pursuant to Annexure A6 notification.

2. According to the applicant, he passed MBBS in 1^st rank in 2010 from the Mahatma Gandhi University. Thereafter, he completed MD in General Medicine in 2016. He completed post-doctoral course in Medicine with speciality in neurology in the above institute and DM in Neurology evidenced by Annexure A2. Post-doctoral fellowship in stroke was also completed in the Institute.

3. In the meanwhile, notification dated 20.9.2021 was issued by the Institute, inviting applications for temporary appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Neurology for six months. The applicant responded and he was ranked first in the list evidenced by Annexure A3(a). He was offered the post of Professor, Neurology for a period of six months. It was extended by another six months evidenced by Annexure A5 experience certificate. In January, 2023 he joined another post-doctoral fellowship programme in Electroencephalography (EEG) for one year at the Institute. While so, Annexure A6 notification dated 12.4.2023 was issued by the Institute, inviting applications for permanent appointment to various posts offered by the notification. The applicant responded to the post of Assistant Professor, Neurology. As per the notification, there were 2 UR vacancies, 1 SC vacancy and 1 ST vacancy. It is understood that 17 persons were shortlisted and they were directed to appear for an interview. There was no written examination prior to the interview. Annexure A7 is the call letter for interview issued to the applicant. He attended. Thereafter, Annexure A1 rank list was published dated 30.6.2023. The applicant herein was not included in the rank list. The 7^th respondent was ranked 1^st, the 5^th respondent ranked 2^nd and the 6^th respondent ranked 3^rd. The 6^th respondent was included in the waiting list.

4. Aggrieved by the above rank list, to extent of overlooking the applicant herein, he has approached this Tribunal, inter alia contending that the selection process was not in tune with the notification and the SOP, and that the selected candidate did not have the requisite qualification.

5. The main reliefs sought are as under:

“b) Declare that the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor (Neurology) conducted in violation of prescribed method of selection mentioned in Annexure A6 notification and the law laid down by the Apex Court is illegal and set aside the same;

c) Declare that Annexure A1 rank list formed on the basis of interview alone is illegal as it is in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court and quash the same;

d) Direct the respondents to conduct a fresh selection to the post of Assistant Professor (Neurology) following the prescribed method of selection provided in Annexure A6 notification, in tune with the law of the land.”

6. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and respondents 5 and 7 filed separate reply statements. A rejoinder was filed. Since the contentions set up by the respondents will be dealt with in detail while analyzing each contention set up by the applicant, the pleadings of the respondents r