The interview committee's subjective assessment of candidates' research aptitude is valid and conclusive under university regulations.

JUDGMENT

The University of Calicut invited applications from eligible candidates for admission to various streams of Ph.D programmes – 2024, vide Ext.P1 notification dated 21.01.2025. The petitioner having completed her post graduation in Medical Biochemistry, applied for admission as a full time Ph.D scholar in Biochemistry, appeared for the written entrance examination and got shortlisted. Thereafter, she attended an interview on 27.05.2025. As the result of the interview was not forthcoming, petitioner checked the rank list published on the notice board of the Department of Life Sciences and was dismayed to find that her name is not included in Ext.P6 Ph.D admission rank list. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;

i. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions; to call for entire records pertaining to Ext.P6 and quash the same;

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 1 to 4 to include petitioners name in the Ext.P6 Rank List and admit her as a Ph.D Scholar in Life Science Department (Biochemistry) of Calicut University.”

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s interview was a mockery and an insulting experience. The members of the interview committee, instead of assessing the petitioner’s aptitude, asked questions totally unrelated to the subject. It is contended that, since the petitioner had secured 50% marks in the written examination, she should have been included in the final rank list, irrespective of her performance in the interview, as separate mark is not specified for the interview. In support of this argument reliance is placed on Clauses 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of Ext.P1 notification. It is then argued that the interview committee was not constituted as mandated in the ‘Regulations for Award of Ph.D Degree, University of Calicut, 2023 ('the Regulations' for short). As per Clause 4.10 of the Regulations, the interview has to be conducted by a duly constituted Department Research Committee consisting of all Research Supervisors of the concerned Department. In the petitioner’s interview, the Head of the Department of Biochemistry was not present and all Research Guides were not included.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that although the petitioner secured 50% marks in the entrance examination, her performance in the interview was bad and the committee found that the petitioner is not having the aptitude to do research. Referring to Clause 4.7 of the Regulations, it is pointed out that the eligibility of the candidates for registration to Ph.D is decided by a two stage process; entrance test and interview/viva voce. All candidates securing minimum 50% marks in the entrance test are qualified to appear for the interview, during which the Department Research Committee will assess the research aptitude of the candidate. In the petitioner's case, the Committee, upon interview, came to the definite conclusion that the petitioner did not have research aptitude. The subjective satisfaction arrived by a committee of experts cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the Standing Counsel, the interview committee was duly constituted. As the Head of the Department was on leave, the Associate Professor of the Department, having charge as the Head of the Department, attended the interview. As such, none of the vitiating factors, alleged by the petitioner, exists. Hence, the prayers are liable to be rejected outright.

4. The contention that, having secured 50%

marks in entrance examination, the petitioner’s name should have been included in the final rank list, irrespective of her performance in the interview, is liable to be rejected, as the Regulations provid