JUDGMENT

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

28.07.2021 in W.P.(C) No.28583 of 2020. The appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition.

2. Kannur University (the University) issued Ext.P1 notification on 3.10.2019 inviting applications online for selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Biotechnology and Microbiology. There was only one vacancy. The eligibility criteria and methodology for selection were as prescribed in the University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (the Regulations). Out of the 131 applicants, 123 applicants including the appellant were short-listed for interview, after which, the fifth respondent who secured first rank in the selection was appointed. The appellant could secure only 66th rank in the selection. According to him, the assessment criteria should have been as prescribed in Tables 1, 2 and 3A of Appendix II to the Regulations, and the selection was not in accordance with the same. It was also alleged by the appellant that in terms of Table 3A, pre-doctoral and post-doctoral teaching experience should have also been taken note of in the matter of conducting the selection and the online application format provided to the candidates did not contain provision for uploading the pre-doctoral teaching experience. It was also alleged by the appellant that norms for conducting the interview have been fixed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, who is not empowered to do so, that too, after issuance of the notification. The appellant, in the circumstances, instituted the writ petition seeking a declaration that the selection made pursuant to Ext.P1 notification is illegal.

3. A counter affidavit was filed in the matter on behalf of the University contending, inter alia, that the selection was in accordance with the Regulations; that the academic scores specified in Table 3A of Appendix II were intended only for short-listing the candidates for interview; that the selection was based solely on the performance of the candidates in the interview and that the Selection Committee was competent to assess the suitability of the applicants to the post. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that Table 1 of Appendix II is intended for selection of University/College Teachers for considering promotions under Career Advancement Scheme and Table 2 of Appendix II is intended for calculating Academic/Research Score of University and College teachers, for the post of Associate Professors and Professors.

4. The learned Single Judge found that Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix II do not apply to the selection for appointment of Assistant Professor and Table 3A applies only for short-listing the candidates for interview. It was also found by the learned Single Judge that the methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants adopted by the Selection Committee was very much in accordance with the Regulations. It was further found by the learned Single Judge that insofar as the appellant has participated in the selection process, in the absence of any allegation of mala fides, he is precluded from challenging the selection. In the light of the findings aforesaid, the writ petition was dismissed. It is aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge that the appellant has come up in this appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the fifth respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the specific case set out by the appellant in the writ petition was that he came to know that the selection was not in accordance with the Regulations only after the selection and that there cannot, therefore, be any impediment for him in challenging the selection process. It was argued by the learned counsel that the se