The selection of candidates for academic posts must comply with UGC Regulations, and wider consideration zones are permissible without statutory prohibition.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who participated in the selection proceeding for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (English) in the 5^th respondent's College, is aggrieved by the selection of the 8^th respondent and rejection of the petitioner's candidature for appointment.

2. The petitioner states that four vacancies of Assistant Professor (English) were notified. After shortlisting, the candidates were interviewed. The cut off marks was fixed at 52. Interview was held on 15.11.2021 and ranklist was prepared on 16.11.2021. In the select list, persons with more score at the time of shortlisting are denied appropriate ranks in the final list. The 8^th respondent was included as rank No.2 whereas the petitioner was included as rank No.5.

3. According to the petitioner, the 8^th respondent is less meritorious. As number of notified posts was only 4, thrice or five times of that number need only be called for interview. However, the respondents fixed cut off marks as 52 with the sole intention to permit the 8^th respondent to appear for the interview. This shows the clear malice of the Selection Committee.

4. The Selection Committee granted 2.8 marks to the 8^th respondent under the head “research publication”, increasing her total marks as 52.8 illegally. The petitioner would urge that the publications made by the 8^th respondent are in journals which were removed from UGC list of journals in the year 2019. Therefore, she is not entitled to get 1.4 marks for publication. Another 1.4 marks also was granted to the 8^th respondent for publication illegally.

5. The journal in which the work was published is a predatory/dubious journal and cannot be treated as authentic “peer reviewed journal”. The petitioner asserts that when the marks awarded to the 8^th respondent under the head “research publication” is deducted, she falls below the cut off fixed for shortlisting the candidates for interview. Nevertheless, the 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P11 order dated 12.07.2022 approving the appointment of the 8^th respondent. Ext.P7 is therefore highly illegal and arbitrary, contends the petitioner.

6. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ravidas M. and another v. Kerala Public Service Commission and others [ 2009 (2) KLT 295 ] wherein this Court has held that number of candidates to be called for interview in the order of the marks obtained in the written examination, should not exceed twice or at the highest thrice the number of vacancies to be filled. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and others [ (1985) 4 SCC 417 ] wherein it was held that where there is a composite test consisting of a written examination followed by a viva voce test, the number of candidates to be called for interview should not exceed twice or thrice the number of vacancies to be filled.

7. Respondents 5 to 7 filed counter affidavit. The respondents stated that altogether four persons were selected after the interview. The grievance of the petitioner is only with respect to the appointment of the 8^th respondent. According to the petitioner, the 8^th respondent was granted a total of 2.8 marks illegally under the head 'Research Publications'. But, the said contention is absolutely incorrect. The published works of the 8^th respondent appeared in the peer reviewed journals which are equivalent to UGC listed journals. The petitioner, on relying Ext.P9, had contended that the publication of the work titled “Seduction o