In Brief
The appellant challenged a High Court order directing a university to add five marks for publications to a rival candidate's selection score for an Assistant Professor post. The Supreme Court found the selection process inherently defective: the university had conducted separate interviews for general and reserved category candidates, which violates the constitutional principle that reserved candidates compete on merit alongside general candidates. The Court also found it procedurally unfair that the same publications were credited differently in interviews held on consecutive days by the same committee. While respecting expert discretion in academic matters, the Court held that discriminatory application of published selection criteria can be corrected. It directed the university to re-conduct the selection using a unified merit list across all categories, though existing appointments would not be disturbed except the appellant's, which would depend on the revised process."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.