Selection criteria challenge barred after participation; pre-doctoral research counted, and unanimous expert selection upheld.

A candidate who participated in the selection process with knowledge of amended eligibility criteria could not later challenge those criteria. The Court treated pre-doctoral research as capable of being counted towards the required teaching or research experience and held that the appellant met the eligibility standard. It further found that the Selection Committee was properly constituted, the alleged quorum defect was unsupported, and no real or reasonably apprehended bias was shown. In the absence of any mandatory rule requiring written comparative grading, the unanimous expert recommendation was not invalidated. The High Court's interference was set aside and the appellant's appointment was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the challenge to the amended eligibility criteria was available to a candidate who participated in the selection process without protest; (ii) whether pre-doctoral research could be counted towards the prescribed teaching or research experience and whether the appellant possessed the requisite qualifications; (iii) whether the Selection Committee was illegally constituted or lacked quorum; (iv) whether the selection was vitiated by bias; and (v) whether the absence of a written record of comparative grading invalidated the unanimous recommendation.

Issue (i): whether the challenge to the amended eligibility criteria was available to a candidate who participated in the selection process without protest.

Analysis: The amended criteria were known to the objecting candidate before interview, yet he applied and participated without protest. A party who takes part in the process with knowledge of the alleged defect cannot later complain of the framing of the eligibility norms in respect of the same selection.

Conclusion: The challenge to the amended eligibility criteria was not available to the objecting candidate.

Issue (ii): whether pre-doctoral research could be counted towards the prescribed teaching or research experience and whether the appellant possessed the requisite qualifications.

Analysis: The prescribed qualification required ten years' experience in postgraduate teaching and or research at university or national level institutions. The expression was construed in the light of the University's understanding and the accepted approach that teaching and research experience may be clubbed. The Court also treated pre-doctoral research as capable of being counted, and declined to adopt a narrow technical reading that would exclude the appellant on a marginal shortfall. On that basis, the appellant was treated as meeting the eligibility standard.

Conclusion: The appellant was qualified to be considered for the post.

Issue (iii): whether the Selection Committee was illegally constituted or lacked quorum.

Analysis: The panel of experts had been prepared from names approved by the Academic Council and arranged in order of preference; there was no demonstrated violation in the constitution of the committee. The alleged quorum defect arose from a typographical error in the report, and the sworn affidavit stated that the concerned expert had in fact attended and signed the proceedings. In the absence of any contrary allegation, the reported defect could not invalidate the selection.

Conclusion: The Selection Committee was validly constituted and its quorum was not vitiated.

Issue (iv): whether the selection was vitiated by bias.

Analysis: Bias must be a real or reasonably apprehended prejudice founded on extraneous considerations. The departmental note praising the appellant reflected an administrative view of his merit and did not show any personal interest, animus, or extraneous motive. The earlier unsuccessful selection did not establish bias in the later process. No reasonable possibility of bias was made out.

Conclusion: The allegation of bias failed.

Issue (v): whether the absence of a written record of comparative grading invalidated the unanimous recommendation.

Analysis: No ordinance prescribing a mandatory marking system or written grading method was shown. For a high academic post, the committee was not bound to record marks in a particular format, and a unanimous expert recommendation could not be invalidated merely for want of a formal comparative grading record.

Conclusion: The selection was not invalidated by the absence of a written grading record.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's decision was set aside and the appellant's appointment was restored on the basis that the selection process did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference.

Ratio Decidendi: A participant who joins a selection process with knowledge of the criteria cannot later challenge those criteria; pre-doctoral research may be counted towards prescribed research experience where the governing standard and institutional practice support such construction; and a unanimous academic selection will not be set aside absent a demonstrated legal defect, real bias, or mandatory procedural violation.

---