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