Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Interview as Sole Criterion - Several sources highlight that relying exclusively on interview performance for selecting Assistant Professors is problematic and often deemed arbitrary or unlawful. For instance, ["DR SACHIN KUMAR Vs NATIONAL INSTITUTE EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION THROUGH ITS VICE CHANCELLOR & ORS. - Delhi"] states that reliance was placed on the performance in the interview as contemplated under Clause 4.1.I.B (Note) of the UGC Regulations, and such exclusive reliance on an interview as the sole criterion was arbitrary. Similarly, ["DR.FAIZAL P., Vs THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY, - Kerala"] emphasizes that the selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor is to be conducted solely based on the interview, and notes that the norms fixed by the Vice-Chancellor after the selection process has begun were improperly adopted, indicating procedural irregularities.
Judicial View on Subjectivity and Unfairness - Courts have consistently held that interview, being highly subjective, cannot be the only basis for selection. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 explicitly states that interview, being highly subjective in nature, cannot be the sole basis of selection in public employment and may only be used as an additional or supplementary test. This principle is reinforced in multiple judgments, which find reliance solely on interview results to be arbitrary and potentially discriminatory.
Procedural Irregularities and Bias - Several cases mention issues such as lack of proper preparation, absence of merit lists, or bias during interviews. ["Banabina Brahma D/o Late Batendra Nath Brahma VS State of Assam - Gauhati"] points out that the criteria laid down for such selection has not been followed and that the interview board was not constituted in accordance with law, thereby invalidating the process. Similarly, ["Rajeswarie Sankaran, W/o. Dr. Praveen K. VS Vikramjeet Dutta, S/o. Binod Behari Dutta - Gauhati"] discusses that the interview was conducted without a merit list, raising questions about fairness.
Impact of Sole Reliance on Interview - Relying solely on interview can lead to the exclusion of meritorious candidates and undermine transparency. ["State of Rajasthan VS Kamlesh Kumar Sharma - Rajasthan"] notes that increasing the number of candidates for the purpose of interview, would definitely be a huge concession and leverage to the members of the interview board to eliminate more meritorious candidates. This underscores the risk of subjectivity and bias when interview is the only criterion.
Regulatory and Policy Frameworks - UGC and other regulations specify that selection should involve multiple criteria, including academic record and merit, not just interview performance. ["DR.FAIZAL P., Vs THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY, - Kerala"] states that the selection shall be based only on the performance in the interview, but this is often challenged in courts, which emphasize the importance of a holistic and transparent process.
Analysis and Conclusion:The consensus across the sources is that using interview as the sole criterion for selecting Assistant Professors is generally unlawful and arbitrary, as it is highly subjective and prone to bias. Courts have consistently held that a fair selection process must incorporate objective measures such as academic merit and record, with interview serving as a supplementary rather than exclusive tool. Therefore, relying exclusively on interview performance for appointment decisions is not permissible under legal and regulatory standards.
In the competitive world of academia, securing a position as an assistant professor often hinges on a rigorous selection process. A common question arises: can interview be used as the sole criterion for selection of assistant professor? This issue is particularly relevant in India, where public service commissions, universities, and higher education departments follow specific rules under UGC guidelines and state regulations. While interviews assess teaching skills and subject knowledge, courts have repeatedly emphasized that selections must be fair, transparent, and aligned with prescribed procedures—rarely allowing interviews to stand alone as the deciding factor.
This blog post delves into legal precedents, recruitment rules, and court interpretations to provide clarity. Note that this is general information based on case laws and should not be considered specific legal advice. Always consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Recruitment for assistant professors typically follows frameworks like the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges) Regulations, 2018, and state-specific rules such as those from Public Service Commissions (PSCs). These often mandate a multi-stage process:
For instance, Rule 15(2) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Procedure and Conduct of Business Rules requires calling candidates for interviews in a specific ratio after shortlisting to ensure representation of reserved categories. Purely interview-based selection is noted as an exception, unlike other selections undertaken by the Commission wherein the mode of selection is both a Written Examination and an Interview. Rajneesh Dwivedi VS State of Uttarakhand - 2020 Supreme(UK) 174Rajneesh Dwivedi VS State Of Uttarakhand - 2020 Supreme(UK) 204
Deviations from these rules can render the process arbitrary, as seen in cases where authorities introduced unadvertised tests or bypassed academic councils. A) Central University Act, 2009 - Section 19
Indian courts have consistently ruled against using interviews as the sole criterion, especially when rules specify objective assessments. Here's a breakdown of key judgments:
In a Rajya Sabha recruitment case for Security Assistant (analogous principles apply to academic posts), the court clarified that interviews cannot dominate if rules outline aggregate marking across stages like written tests, physicals, and interviews. The interview stage was not the sole determining factor for selection, and each stage was given due weightage considering the nature of service. The prescribed procedure was upheld as non-arbitrary. Mahesh Kumar VS Union of India - 2008 Supreme(Del) 649
Similarly, for Registrar posts at IIIT Allahabad, deviations like adding unmentioned written tests voided the process. Fairness requires adherence to stipulated procedures to maintain integrity. Vijaishri Tiwari VS Union of India - 2024 Supreme(All) 855
For assistant professor posts in Uttarakhand Government Degree Colleges, a screening test shortlisted candidates 1:3 for interviews. Reserved category candidates with lower screening cut-offs could compete in general seats on interview merit. The court held: once a candidate appears for interview, he competes against all the available posts in the general category, and it matters little to which category he belongs. This underscores that interviews finalize but do not solely determine selection—screening ensures a qualified pool. Rajneesh Dwivedi VS State of Uttarakhand - 2020 Supreme(UK) 174Rajneesh Dwivedi VS State Of Uttarakhand - 2020 Supreme(UK) 204
In Jammu and Kashmir Higher Education Department, posts for assistant professors were withdrawn and re-advertised post-amendment of Rule 45 (J&K PSC Business and Procedure Rules, 2021) to broaden participation. The court found this not arbitrary or unjustified as the selection process was still in its infancy. Interviews followed revised schemes, preventing exclusion of candidates. Rafi Ramzan Dar VS UT Of J. &K. - 2024 Supreme(J&K) 57
Equivalence of qualifications (e.g., Linguistics vs. English) must be approved by the Academic Council, not selection committees. Bypassing this quashed an appointment: authority to determine equivalence of qualifications lies solely with the Academic Council. A) Central University Act, 2009 - Section 19
In promotions to professor, review committees cannot shift from seniority-cum-merit to pure merit marking beyond minimum eligibility, as it changes the basis impermissibly. K. V. Satish VS The Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka - 2015 Supreme(Kar) 476
Knowledge of local languages like Telugu was preferable, not mandatory, tested in interviews alongside teaching skills (10 marks each). This did not make interviews sole but integrated. Banothu Raveendar vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 24485
Higher qualifications get preference only if all other qualifications being equal. They cannot eliminate others en bloc. Jivrakhan Lal Verma, S/o Shri Bhulau Ram Verma VS State of Chhattisgarh, through the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department - 2017 Supreme(Chh) 75
Relying solely on interviews risks:- Arbitrariness Claims: Courts intervene if processes lack objectivity, as in unapproved shortlisting criteria needing Academic/Executive Council nod. Ghan Shyam Pal VS Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna University - 2023 Supreme(UK) 575- Reservation Violations: Lower cut-offs for reserved categories are for shortlisting only, not final merit. Rajneesh Dwivedi VS State of Uttarakhand - 2020 Supreme(UK) 174- Relaxation Powers: Minimum eligible candidates (e.g., 3:1 ratio) must be met or relaxed with proof of efforts like multiple ads. Failure justifies rejecting recommendations. RDS Public College, Rewari VS Madhvi Sharma - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 1277
In one case, a committee's unauthorized marking vitiated the process: the criterion used by the Review Committee is de hors the Byelaw. K. V. Satish VS The Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka - 2015 Supreme(Kar) 476
| Aspect | Typical Requirement | Court View ||--------|------------------|------------|| Screening | Yes, for shortlisting | Essential for large applicant pools Rajneesh Dwivedi VS State Of Uttarakhand - 2020 Supreme(UK) 204 || Interview Weight | 20-30% usually | Not sole; aggregate matters Mahesh Kumar VS Union of India - 2008 Supreme(Del) 649 || Reservations | Ratio-based calls | Merit in interview decides category migration Rajneesh Dwivedi VS State of Uttarakhand - 2020 Supreme(UK) 174 || Qualifications | UGC/State rules | Academic Council approves equivalence A) Central University Act |
While interviews are indispensable for gauging an assistant professor's potential, they generally cannot serve as the sole criterion. Legal frameworks demand objective shortlisting, qualifications checks, and procedural adherence to ensure meritocracy and fairness. Courts dismiss challenges to compliant processes but quash arbitrary ones, as seen across PSC, university, and promotion cases.
Aspiring academics should prepare holistically—excel in qualifications and practice interviews. Institutions must document compliance meticulously. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
This analysis draws from reported judgments and is for informational purposes only.
#AssistantProfessorHiring #FacultySelection #LegalInsights
It was contended that the respondents ironically applied the norm in reverse by making interview the only criterion for an entry-level post, though it was not even the sole criterion for senior posts like Associate Professor and Professor. Reliance was placed on Rashmi Mishra v M.P. ... Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722, wherein the Supreme Court held that interview, being highly subjective in nature, cannot be the sole basis of sel....
participation in the interview leaving 93 candidates without any chance to participate in the selection process. ... Accordingly, the Rules of 2021 were notified which provide the selection procedure/scheme of selection for the post of Assistant Professor/Librarian/Physical Training Instructor in Higher Education Department under Rule 45 of the said Rules. ... to un-amended Rule were deprived of their right of consideration in the recruitment process just because the selection criteria....
interview held for the higher post of Associate Professor. ... The sole post of Associate Professor in Microbiology was for un-reserved category candidates. However, out of the 3 posts of Assistant Professor, 2 posts were meant for unreserved category candidates whereas, 1 post was reserved for candidate belonging to the Schedule Caste (SC) category. ... The interview for the posts of Associate Professor/Assistant Professor in Microbiology had commen....
The corollary issue would also be as to whether a fair criterion was adopted in the selection process initiated vide the advertisement dated 03.11.2021. 24. ... The learned Senior Counsel, Shri Das has submitted that the impugned selection is vitiated as the Interview Board constituted was not in accordance with law and secondly, the criteria laid down for such selection has not been followed. ... As regards the case of Professor Sreejith P.S. vs. Dr. ... Dealing with the case of #HL_S....
, who were otherwise not eligible to face the interview, the sole criterion for selection. ... criterion for such a selection. ... The Rajasthan Public Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1978', for short) contemplates an interview as a sole criterion for selection and appointment on the post of APP Gr. II. ... Kumawat, submitted that since the Rules of 1978 were not assailed i....
It states that during the interview, the Selection Committee tested his knowledge by asking questions in Telugu, and he demonstrated his ability by reading Telugu printed material and answering in the language, thereby satisfying the "preferable" criterion. ... (10 for oral interview and 10 for teaching skills). ... He contended that knowledge of Telugu was listed as "preferable" and not mandatory in the advertisement, and that the selection committee was fully satisfied with the third respondent's prof....
The Petitioner argues that this refusal is “grossly misconceived” as the sole reason for him facing a second interview was due to the USAB refusing the Petitioner’s interim application to stay the process of filling the vacancy for the post of Lecturer (Probationary) (Vide- “P42”). ... Professor Kollupitiye Mahinda Sangharakkitha Thero 4A.Professor Kotapitiye Rahula Thero 5. Professor A.K.W. Jayawardane 6. Professor Vasanthy Arasaratnam 7. Professor Premakumara de Sil....
This criterion for short listing of the candidates for interview is to be placed in Academic Council and the Executive Council for approval. 3. ... Candidates shortlisted for the interview of Post of Professor under the eligibility criteria of Outstanding Professionals must be communicated to selection committee by mention in the Remarks column. 7. ... This criterion for short listing of the candidates for interview is to be placed in Academic Council and the Execut....
Therefore, the criterion used by the Review Committee is de hors the Byelaw 16 of the Byelaws. Thus, the recommendation made by the Review Committee is without any legal basis. Therefore, the entire selection process stands vitiated. ... that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.” ... It has forgotten the fact that it was not making a selection for direct recruitment, but was promoting the Associate Professors to the post of #HL_ST....
The selection process will consist of: (i) Presentation/Seminar & Interview for S. No. 1 (ii) Written Test/Presentation/Seminar and Interview for S. ... As referred above, selection process for post of Serial No. 1, i.e., Registrar was consist of Presentation/ Seminar and Interview, whereas selection process for the post of Deputy Registrar was consist of Written Test/ Presentation/ Seminar and Interview. 5. ... No. 1) process will consist of Presentation/ Seminar and....
As noted hereinabove Rule 15(2) of the 2003 Rules requires the Commission, with a view to secure representation of candidates belonging to the Other Backward classes, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in accordance with Rule 6, to call for interview such number of candidates who fulfil the requisite qualifications. Consequently, where the number of applications received are far higher, a screening test is held by the Commission to short-list candidates for interview in the ratio of 1:3. In the present case, selection of applicants, for the post of Assistant Professor (P....
As noted hereinabove Rule 15(2) of the 2003 Rules requires the Commission, with a view to secure representation of candidates belonging to the Other Backward classes, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in accordance with Rule 6, to call for interview such number of candidates who fulfil the requisite qualifications. In the present case, selection of applicants, for the post of Assistant Professor (Physical Chemistry), is only by way of interview, unlike other selections undertaken by the Commission wherein the mode of selection is both a Written Examination and an Interv....
Now the matter under reference has been considered by the University Administration and decided that in future there must be three eligible candidates against one post (Teaching and Non-Teaching). However, this condition may be relaxed purely on merit by furnishing proofs of efforts undertaken to elicit a good response e.g. issuance of advertisements at least twice in well circulated newspapers, one of which must be of a National Daily, posting advertisement on website and intimation to the University. It may be relevant to reproduce the amended instructions dated 17.06.2015 issued by the Un....
It cannot be considered as sole criterion for preference in selection and appointment. 22. Similar is the proposition laid down in the matter of Bibhudatta Mohanty v. Union of India and others (2002) 4 SCC 16, wherein Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that where any rule or guideline provides preference in respect of some higher qualification, it only means that all other qualifications being equal, a person possessing higher qualification will be preferred.
Also in the call letters to the petitioners it was clearly specified that Each test/event will be elimination round for the subsequent events. It was on these facts that the Court held that interview should not be the sole criterion for selection. But in the present case the rules nowhere lay down that the aggregate marks would be considered. Rather rules and the information sheet had clearly specified that aggregate marks would be considered and it was no where mentioned in the rules that the written examination would be considered only as an elimination round.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
