Selection Committee's 'None Found Suitable' Decision for Reserved Post Arbitrary & Malafide: Madras HC - 2025-06-02

Madras HC Quashes University's 'None Found Suitable' Decision for SC Professor Post, Orders Appointment

Chennai: In a significant ruling upholding the spirit of reservation policy and transparency in academic appointments, the Madras High Court has quashed an order from Pondicherry University that rejected the lone candidate for a Professor post reserved for the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. The court, presided over by Mr. Justice C.V.Karthikeyan , found the university's decision arbitrary, opaque, and potentially driven by malafide intention to avoid filling the reserved backlog vacancy. The court directed the university to appoint the petitioner, N. Mani , to the post within two weeks.

The case revolved around an advertisement issued by Pondicherry University on August 5, 2019, for the post of Professor in the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, specifically reserved for an SC candidate. This post had remained vacant since the Centre's establishment in 2009, treated as a backlog vacancy.

Petitioner N. Mani , an Associate Professor with over 32 years of teaching experience (significantly exceeding the UGC's minimum of 10 years), extensive publications, a high API score (397 against UGC's 120 minimum), and having guided numerous PhD and M.Phil scholars, applied for the position. He was shortlisted and was the only candidate who attended the interview held on November 21, 2022.

Despite his evidently strong qualifications, the University's Selection Committee returned an opinion stating "none found suitable". No specific reasons were provided for this decision, leading the petitioner to challenge the university's order dated December 18, 2023, as arbitrary and lacking transparency.

The petitioner argued that his qualifications far surpassed the minimum requirements and that his rejection without any stated reasons, especially as the only candidate for a long-vacant reserved post, was unfair and defeated the purpose of the reservation policy.

Pondicherry University, represented by its Standing Counsel, contended that mere eligibility does not guarantee suitability, and the Selection Committee is the expert body whose opinion on suitability is not subject to judicial review. They cited several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the distinction between eligibility and suitability and the committee's right not to record reasons.

However, Justice C.V.Karthikeyan carefully considered the arguments and distinguished the cited precedents based on the unique facts of the case. He noted that unlike cases involving multiple candidates or allegations against selected individuals, this case involved the sole candidate being rejected without explanation for a reserved post vacant for over a decade.

Crucially, the court's perusal of the original selection file revealed procedural irregularities. While the Recruitment Cell had initially found the petitioner eligible in February 2021, the Selection Committee (comprising the Vice Chancellor and four other members present) deemed "none found suitable" in the November 2022 meeting. More alarmingly, two other members who were not present at the interview meeting subsequently affixed their signatures to the resolution three months later in February 2023.

The court found this subsequent authentication by non-participating members highly irregular, terming their signatures as "rubber stamps" that did not reflect a genuine assessment of suitability.

Justice Karthikeyan observed, "This opinion itself is a misnomer as the petitioner was the only candidate, who appeared for the interview and therefore the opinion should be focused on his eligibility and suitability and it cannot be a generalised statement."

Highlighting the deliberate nature of the exclusion, the judgment stated, "This would only imply that there is a deliberate policy adopted by the first respondent to exclude any and every Schedule Caste candidate, even though eligible from being appointed to the said post."

The court found it "very depressing" that members who didn't attend the interview authenticated the decision later, concluding that this procedure was arbitrary and indicated a "mala fide intention that the petitioner was declared as not suitable."

Citing the Supreme Court's observation in Food Corporation of India Vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993) 1 SCC 71, the court held that failing to give due weight to the petitioner's qualifications and experience rendered the decision arbitrary and subject to judicial scrutiny.

The judgment pointed out the irony that the petitioner, whose research focused on social exclusion, was seemingly excluded based on his community for a position in a centre dedicated to studying that very subject.

Setting aside the university's decision, the court directed Pondicherry University to issue an appointment order to N. Mani for the Professor post within two weeks, granting him service and monetary benefits retroactively from December 18, 2023 (the date of the impugned rejection order).

The ruling underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring fairness and adherence to constitutional principles, particularly concerning reservation policies and transparency in recruitment processes, even when suitability assessments are involved.

The Writ Petition was allowed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.