The court upheld the validity of the university's selection process, emphasizing statutory compliance, lack of demonstrated irregularities, and proper formation of the selection committee despite a vacancy.

1. The petitioner is a candidate applied for appointment in the 3rd respondent University to the post of Lecturer in Music, for which application was invited based on Ext. P1 notification. There is no dispute with respect to qualification and eligibility of the petitioner to the post in question. The petitioner had attended the interview conducted on 14/06/2004. The 2nd respondent had published a rank list of 8 candidates in which the petitioner's name was not included. The additional 5th respondent herein was given appointment from the merit quota. According to the petitioner the 2nd vacancy ought to have been given to an Ezhava candidate, as per the Rules of reservation provided in the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS&SSR). The University had issued appointment order to one M. Sajith who was included as Serial No. 6 in the rank list, who belongs to Hindu - Ezhava Community. But Mr. Sajith has not joined duty for personal reasons. Even then the petitioner was not considered for selection since the 3rd respondent University has not prepared any supplementary list. This writ petition was originally filed alleging that the respondents 1 to 3 are taking hasty steps to appoint the 4th additional respondent (impleaded subsequently). It was contended that the 4th respondent belongs to Hindu - Ganaka Community which belongs to Other Backward Community (OBC). According to the petitioner, if a supplementary list would have prepared, there was every chance for the petitioner to get appointment in the vacancy earmarked for Ezhava Community. Therefore the petitioner had challenged the entire selection process as well as the rank list published. Subsequently the petitioner had impleaded respondents 4 and 5 and amended the writ petition by incorporating additional grounds for challenging validity of constitution of the Selection Committee, the process of selection adopted, preparation of rank list etc. The petitioner is seeking relief to set aside the selection and to appoint her in the vacancy which is earmarked for Hindu - Ezhava Community. Intera alia the petitioner is seeking various reliefs to the effect of nullifying the selection process.

2. One of the main contentions urged, is regarding the constitution of the Selection Committee. Referring to Statute 4 of Chapter III of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Statutes 1997, it is pointed out that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. Statute 4 prescribes that when posts are to be filled up by inviting applications through advertisements the applications received shall be first screened by a Committee consisting of the Head of the concerned Department of Study and Research and the second member of the Syndicate. The applications found to be in order by the said Committee shall be referred to the Selection Committee consisting of the following persons:
(i) Vice Chancellor of the University who shall be the Ex - officio Chairman of the Selection Committee.
(ii) The Principal Dean of Studies.
(iii)(b) One Syndicate member to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor, two out side expert chosen by the Syndicate and the Head of the concerned University Department or the teacher holding charge of the Head of the Department.

3. Contention of the petitioner is that the Principal Dean of Studies was not included in the Selection Committee and therefore the Selection Committee was not constituted in accordance with the Statue. It is contended that selection if any made by a Committee