Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1)DR.S.ARULMANI V. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS (CDJ 2006 MHC 850) (W.P.No.17630 of 2005 dated 10.03.2006); and (2)ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT OF PRIVATE COLLEGES V. THE SECRETARY, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND OTHERS (CDJ 2006 MHC 2466) (W/P.No.25433 of 2006 dated 12.09.2006).

4. Submissions of the Respondents:-

4.1. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent submitted that the selection has been based upon objective consideration of the available materials. As there is no mala fides involved, the power of judicial review is not required to be extended. The API scores are meant for shortlisting alone. The total discretion lies only with the fourth respondent in making selection. The mistake committed in the earlier counter affidavit was rectified in the subsequent one. Appropriate steps have been taken by informing the Universities for appointing the nominees of the Vice Chancellor, for which the fourth respondent cannot be held responsible. The Regulations have been correctly followed both with respect to the constitution of the Selection Committee and the subsequent selection process. Therefore, no interference is required.