Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Accordingly, the interview was conducted on 03.02.2025. Thereafter, on 11.02.2025, Respondent No.1 published the category wise result of the selection process. As per the declared results, candidates were selected under the categories of Unreserved, Other Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes. In so far as the PwD category was concerned, the impugned Results recorded that "none of the candidates interviewed by the Committee was found suitable for the post".

6. However, respondent No.1 declined to furnish several material details, while stating that no reasons were recorded by the Selection Committee for declaring "none found suitable" for the concerned PwD candidates; that there was no internal distribution of interview marks; that 13 PwD candidates were interviewed and that the unfilled PwD post would be treated as a backlog vacancy and carried forward as an EWS-PwD post. Meanwhile, pursuant to a separate RTI dated 03.04.2025 filed by Ms. Amrita Singh, the Respondent No.1 furnished the roster for Assistant Professors on 01.05.2025.

II. INTERVIEW-CENTRIC SELECTION

66. It is undisputed that the selection process adopted by Respondent No.1 was based exclusively on interview/viva-voce. No written examination or structured marking methodology was followed. The respondents have also admitted that there was no internal distribution of marks or predefined evaluation matrix for the interview. Further, no reasons were recorded for declaring the reserved PwD post as "none found suitable". Such an admission itself demonstrates the opacity and subjective nature of the process.

94. As a logical corollary, this Court issues the following directions:

a) The impugned Advertisement, to the extent it prescribes a 100% interview-based selection for a PwBD-reserved post without laying down a structured and objective evaluation framework, and the declaration of the PwBD post as "none found suitable", is hereby quashed.