JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of March, 2022 The petitioner had participated in the interview to the post of Teacher in the Buds Rehabilitation Centre conducted by the second respondent Panchayath. The petitioner alleges that the irregular manner in which the interview was conducted had resulted in the 3rd respondent securing 305 marks and the petitioner, only 290 marks. According to the petitioner, the Interview Board should have eight persons, including the Assistant Secretary of Panchayath. But, only seven of the members participated in the interview. The petitioner alleges that the Assistant Secretary of the Panchayath was not allowed to participate, so as to ensure that the 3rd respondent got the highest marks. Had the Assistant Secretary participated, the interview, he would have granted proper marks to the candidates and in such an event, the petitioner could have secured the highest marks. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the note below the interview marks is indicative of the deliberate attempt to award marks for experience to the 3rd respondent, even though no member of the Interview Board had granted any mark to the 3rd respondent for experience.

2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Panchayath, it is stated that the Panchayath had addressed the District Mission Coordinator, Kudumbashree District Mission with a request to provide a list of candidates for selection and appointment as teacher in the Buds Rehabilitation Centre. The District Mission Coordinator sent Ext,R1(c) reply stating that the Panchayath could appoint a teacher having the qualification prescribed in G.O. (M.S) No.20/2018/L.S.G.D dated 07.02.2018 [Ext.R1(d)]. Accordingly, Ext.R1(e) notification was issued and by Ext.R1(f) resolution, the Panchayath constituted an interview committee consisting of eight persons. Six candidates, including the petitioner appeared for the interview and the selection committee consisting of seven members conducted the interview and awarded marks. The Assistant Secretary had to attend another meeting scheduled on the same day and therefore could not be present during the interview. A comparison of the interview marks shows that the 3rd respondent was far ahead of the petitioner and the presence of an additional member in the Interview Board would not have made any difference. Moreover, while the 3rd respondent is having Diploma in Intellectual Disability and Mental Retardation, the petitioner's Diploma is in Visual Impairment. It is submitted that all the students at the Buds School in the Panchayath are suffering from neurological issues and a person with qualification in Visual Impairment may not be able to render necessary help. In answer to the contention that the Panchayath Committee had directed grant of marks for experience to the 3rd respondent, it is submitted that note by the Panchayath members only says that the 3rd respondent's experience is a matter to be taken into consideration. Finally it is contended that, having participated in the interview, the petitioner cannot challenge the process of interview on finding that she could not secure the first rank.

3. Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent adopted the contentions advanced on behalf of the Panchayath and submitted that the 3rd respondent had secured first rank based on her performance and qualification.

4. The contention that the interview is vitiated due to the absence of the Assistant Secretary cannot be countenanced, since the interview committee was not statutorily constituted and was merely based on the decision of the Panchayath Committee to constitute a committee consisting of eight persons. As such, absence of one member cannot result in the interview being vitiated. There is also substance in the submission that the 3rd respondent is more suited for the post of teacher at the Buds School, since she apparently has the more suitable qualification for being care giver to persons with neurological issues. The committ