WP/26866/2023 of DR. L. BINU KUMAR Vs THE VICE CHANCELLOR on 13 November 2026

ORDER

The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition is that, the first respondent-University has issued a Recruitment Notification on 29.10.2019, calling for two posts of Associate Professors and one post of Assistant Professor for the Department of Performing Arts. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has applied for the post of an Assistant Professor in performing Arts. The said post was reserved for OBC. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has applied for the said post along with others and an interview was conducted on 08.06.2023. After the interview, the respondents 1 to 3 have selected the private respondents 4 & 5. Aggrieved with the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. Heard Mrs.Vijayakumari Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.Balamurugane, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, Mr.M.R.Thangavel, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.A.Rahul, learned counsel for the 5th respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Recruitment Notification though was issued for the post of an Assistant Professor under the Heading of Performing Arts, a specialisation has also been mentioned. According to the Notification, the specialisation is in “Stage Craft and Backstage Techniques”. Except the petitioner, no other persons had qualification in the above specialisation. Even the respondents 4 and 5 did not possess qualification in specialisation subject. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the very Expert Committee, which conducted an interview is not a proper and an appropriate Expert Committee to conduct interview for the post for an Assistant Professor under Performing Arts. It is the contention of the petitioner that when the Recruitment Notification calling for the vacancy of Performing Arts in specialisation of Stage Craft and Backstage Techniques, none of the experts had relevant qualification in the concerned subject. Therefore, when the Expert Committee is flawed, the entire selection would be vitiated. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the respondent has given marks to the private respondents over and above the maximum marks which by itself demonstrate the blatant violation in the recruitment process. Hence, prayed to interfere with the selection of the respondents 4 and 5 by declaring that the respondents 4 and 5 are not eligible to be appointed in the post of an Assistant Professor. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that having the Notification issued for one vacancy, during the Recruitment process, they have increased the vacancy position and they appointed one more person as Assistant Professor. Hence, it is the contention that there is an arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents. Hence, prayed to interfere with the selection of the private respondents.

4. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and would contend that the Expert Committee was formulated based upon the UGC guidelines, and that according to the UGC guidelines, the Expert should be in the Performing Arts and the Experts were from the Performing Arts. According to the learned Standing Counsel, there are no grounds pleaded by the petitioner as to the mala fideness in the selection process. Apart from that, the learned Standing Counsel would contend that the specialisation referred to in Stage Craft and Backstage Techniques would only be construed as a desirable qualification and not as an essential qualification. It is also the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the marks awarded to the petitioner was for the educational qualification qua with reference to their eligibility criteria to participate in the interview, and not that those marks are relevant for ultimate selection and such selection, even according to the Notification, was based upon their performance in the interview. It is in this background, would contend that even if there is certain inadvertent mistake in awarding marks, will in no way advance the petitioner’s case as the same has no impact upon the final selection of the candidates. It is also the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner having participated in the interview conducted by the Expert Committee, is estopped to challenge the very Expert Committee. Hence, it is their contention that the selection of the respondents 4 and 5 is in accordance with law, and that there are no grounds to interfere with their selection. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. In addition to the above submission, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent would contend that the 4th respondent is more qualified than the petitioner and that the prayer is not maintainable.

6. Similarly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent would contend that increasing the post from 1 to 2 is in accordance with the Notification, therefore, the petitioner cannot insinuate any motive for the same. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

8. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents 4 and 5 do not have the qualification in the relevant subject viz., Stage Craft and Backstage Techniques. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the notification issued by the respondents. According to the Notification dated 29.10.2019 in serial no.28, for the School of Performing Arts, they called for the vacancy of two posts of Associate Professor, and one post of Assistant Professor under the communal category of OBC. The Notification refers about the specialisation. For the Assistant Professor, the Specialisation is referred as “Stage Craft and Backstage Techniques”.

9. Now the point to be considered here is, whether the reference of specialisation is a primary consideration or it is a desirable qualification?. The respondents have not disputed with respect to the qualification of the petitioner in Drama and Theatre Arts. In respect of the Assistant Professor, the qualification is referred to as follows:- “(iii) ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

a) Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master’s Degree level in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university.

b) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR.

c) Notwithstanding anything contained in (ii) above candidates, who are, or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET.

d) NET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET is not conducted.

III. A relaxation of 5% may be provided, from 55% to 50% of the marks to the Ph.D degree holders, who have passed their Master’s degree prior to 19th September, 1991.

IV. Relevant grade which is regarded as equivalent of 55% wherever the grading system is followed by a recognised university shall also be considered eligible.”

10. On close reading of the above qualification, it refers to the Master Degree in a relevant subject from an Indian University. However, the word “relevant subject” has not at all been defined in any of the Notification. According to the specialisation, though it refers as Stage Craft and Backstage Techniques, while looking into the qualification of the petitioner, he obtained Master Degree and M.Phil in Drama and Theatre Arts. Therefore, the mere reference of the Stage Craft and Backstage Techniques though referred, there are no reference in the Notification that it is the requisite qualification to apply for the post of Assistant Professor. Therefore, the “relevant subject” would only

mean that a Master Degree in Drama. Admittedly, the petitioner and the private respondents have Master Degree in Drama.

11. It is an admitted fact that under the major classification of Performing Arts, there are sub categories, which are Dance, Music, Drama and Theatre Arts. To put it differently, the above sub divisions would come within “Performing Arts”. Since because there is a specialisation referred as Stage Craft, Backstage Techniques, that by itself will not confer any specialised right to exclude the other persons those who got a qualification in the relevant subject viz., Drama. Therefore, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has got specific qualification in Stage Craft and Backstage Techniques will in no way excludes the other participants from competing for the post of an Assistant Professor.

12. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer that the private respondents have also got Master degree in Drama. While perusing the NET certificate, the 4th respondent Pavithra has successfully qualified in UGC NET in the subject of Performing Art-Dance/Drama/Theatre. On perusal of the certificate given by the Bangalore University, she has secured Gold medal in Acting/Stage Craft and also in M.A., Drama. Similarly, the 5th respondent has also got Degree in M.A., Dramatics and Film studies. Therefore, it cannot be contended by the petitioner that the private respondents did not possess the requisite qualification. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, the specialisation cannot be construed as the primary qualification, but it is only a desirable qualification.

13. Generally, when the Expert Committee take decision, this Court normally will not interfere in the selection. In this case, as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner has not pleaded any mala fides. However, it is the contention that the very Expert Committee is flawed as the specialisation being in Drama, the Experts ought to have been in the subject of Drama. The petitioner contended that one of the expert is from Dance and other two persons are from Music. No expert is from Drama. This position is not seriously disputed by the respondent. The Selection Committee Ordinance 19, Clause 7 deals about the Selection Committee for the post of an Assistant Professor. For ready reference, the same is extracted hereunder:- “The Selection Committee for the post of Assistant Professor in the University shall have the following composition.

1. The Vice Chancellor shall be the Chairperson of the Selection Committee. Vice Chancellor may delegate power to Pro Vice Chancellor to chair the Selection Committee.

2. An academician nominated by the Visitor.

3. Three experts in the concerned subject nominated by the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names approved by the Executive Council.

4. Dean of the concerned School, wherever applicable

5. Chairperson of the Centre.

6. An academician representing SC/ ST/ OBC/ Minority/ Women/ Differently-abled categories to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor, if any of the candidates representing these categories is an applicant and if any of the above members of the selection committee do not belong to that category.” According to the above ordinance, the Expert of the concerned subject should be drawn from the list of names approved by the Executive Council and selected and nominated by the Vice Chancellor. Here, the concerned subject is “Drama”. But, according to the petitioner, the Experts are not from the subject Drama, which factum is not seriously disputed by the respondents.

14. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in WA.No.2136 of 2025 [The Registrar Vs. N.Mani and others] where the Division Bench, in paragraph 15 has held as follows:- “15. We therefore do not find any necessity to go into the other issues as to whether some of the members participated or not. Once it is found that the constitution of the Committee itself is flawed then, the non-selection of the petitioner in the writ petition has to be essentially set aside. While sharing the anguish expressed by the learned Judge, at a deliberate attempt being made to keep out Scheduled Caste candidates from the post of Professors in the University, that too, a Central University, of which, the President of India happens to be the visitor, we are unable to affirm the conclusion of the learned Judge regarding the non-participation of the some of the members in the meeting held on 21.11.2022. The minutes that has been produced before us shows that the four members of the Committee had attended virtually and it is also shown that they had affirmed the minutes by separate E-mail communications in February, 2023. Since the composition of the Committee itself was flawed, the non-selection of the petitioner has to be necessarily set aside.” According to the above ratio, when the Selection Committee is flawed, then the entire selection would be vitiated. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.23141 of 2024 [Mandeep Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab and others], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, when a law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it ought to have been done in that manner alone. According to the petitioner, here the Expert Committee has not been constituted with an expert having expertised in the concerned subject viz., Drama and Theatre Arts.

15. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents- University had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others reported in (2023) 17 SCC 147 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:- “36. Thus, the inexorable conclusion that can be drawn is that it is not within the domain of the courts, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a Selection Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the courts intervene.

37. Thus, courts while exercising the power of judicial review cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the viva voce are excessive and not corresponding to their performance in such test. The assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates appearing before the Selection Committee/Interview Board should be best left to the members of the committee. In light of the position that a Court cannot sit in appeal against the decision taken pursuant to a reasonably sound selection process, the following grounds raised by the writ petitioners, which are based on an attack of subjective criteria employed by the Selection Board/interview panel in assessing the suitability of candidates, namely, (i) that the candidates who had done their postgraduation had been awarded 10 marks and in the viva voce, such PG candidates had been granted either 18 marks or 20 marks out of 20; (ii) that although the writ petitioners had performed exceptionally well in the interview, the authorities had acted in an arbitrary manner while carrying out the selection process, would not hold any water. ……

59. Only 20 out of 100 marks were allocated for interview/viva voce. The same is only 20% of the total marks which cannot be said to be an excessive proportion out of the total marks. Further, courts cannot sit in judgment over the award of marks by an interview panel. That is best left to the judgment and wisdom of the interview panel. In the above premise, we do not think there is any merit in the contention of the writ petitioners regarding the award of marks to the candidates who appeared for viva voce before the panel. Moreover, the award of 80% of the total marks is on objective criteria depending upon the educational qualification of the individual candidates.

60. Further, it appears to us the criteria was recast vide Corrigendum dated 12-6-2009, by increasing the weightage accorded to candidates possessing a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Chemistry and advanced qualifications such as postgraduate degrees, PhD, etc. with a view to incentivise more qualified persons who had applied for the said posts. Recasting the criteria was only with regard to allocation of marks for the respective educational qualification of the candidates. In our view, it was with a view to preserve the standards of the selection process and was not motivated by mala fides or oblique motive. Higher the qualification a candidate possessed, higher marks were awarded. In other words, the minimum marks awarded for educational qualification was 65 and could increase to 80 depending on the higher qualifications of the candidates. Therefore, we are unable to interfere with the selection process on the ground that the award of marks was recast unilaterally. The reallocation of marks based on the educational qualification was in recognition of the higher qualification of the candidates which cannot be termed to be arbitrary. It is a no-brainer that any candidate who was aggrieved by the recast of marks would either withdraw his candidature or challenge the Corrigendum dated 12-6-2009 at a preliminary stage in the selection process. However, the writ petitioners did not do so. Having participated in the selection process without any demur or protest, the writ petitioners cannot challenge the same as being tainted with mala fides, merely because they were unsuccessful.”

16. This Court has no quarrel with the above ratio. But, the issue now centres around the flawed Expert Committee. As already stated, this Court arrived at a conclusion that the private respondents are also qualified to be participated in the Recruitment process. The Court while exercising the judicial review cannot sit over the selection made by the Experts, unless there is a mala fide and fraud. Here, such is not the case. But, the main attack made by the petitioner is in respect of the flawed Selection Committee. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and the learned Senior Counsel and the other learned counsel for the private respondents would contend that the petitioner having participated in the interview process, estopped to challenge the Expert panel. Though such being the position in general, admittedly, before attending interview nobody knows the quorum of the Experts. Only during the interview, the candidates would encounter or would know who is the Expert.

Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing counsel that the petitioner ought to have objected the Experts Committee before attending the interview, to my mind, is not an appropriate argument.

17. Before we delve further, this Court on its own initiative, analysed the website of the Pondicherry University, wherein they offered the following degrees:- ●B.P.A(Honors) Drama and Theatre Arts, ●M.P.A Drama and Theatre Arts, ●M.Phil Drama and Theatre Arts, ●P.G Diploma in Drama and Theatre Arts and ●Ph.D Drama and Theatre Arts.

18. In the website, the private respondents’ name and their photos are also find a place indicating that they are the Assistant Professor of the Department of Performing Arts. On perusal of the above web page, it is crystallised that the concerned subject in the formation of the Expert Committee would be from the subject of Drama. But, contrarily, out of the three experts, none of them is from Drama, but one of them is from “Music” and another two from “Dance”. This position has not been seriously disputed. So, in that scenario, if we apply the ratio laid down by this Court in N.Mani's case [cited supra] and also the judgement of the Supreme Court in Mandeep Singh's case [cited supra], this Court is of the firm view that the Expert panel formed by the respondent is flawed, though, this Court holds that this petitioner and the private respondents are qualified to participate in the recruitment process.

19. Hence, this Court is of the indubitable view that the selection of private respondents is liable to be set aside. As a concomitant, the matter is remitted back to the respondents to conduct a fresh interview to all those who participated in the interview earlier, by appointing Experts in strict compliance to Ordinance 19, Clause 7 of the Pondicherry University Act and complete the de novo interview process, within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the newly selected persons to be appointed within a further period of four(4) weeks. Till then, considering the interest of the students, the private respondents namely Respondents 4 and 5 are permitted to continue as Assistant Professors.

20. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is also closed. 13-11-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KMI Note : Original Records may be returned after due acknowledgement. To

1. The Vice Chancellor Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry 605 014

2. The Executive Committee Rep. By Its Chairman, Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry 605 014.

3. The Selection Committee Rep. By Its Chairman, Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry 605 014.

4. The Registrar, Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry.605 014.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KMI WP No. 26866 of 2023 AND WMP N

o . 26279

of

13-11-2026