Judgment The petitioner is presently working as Assistant Registrar in Alagappa University, Karaikudi. Formerly, the fourth respondent was also working as Assistant Registrar. The next avenue of promotion is for the post of Deputy Registrar. During the year 2012, there arose a vacancy for the post of Deputy Registrar. The said post is governed by the Alagappa University Statute issued under Section 44 of the Alagappa University Act, 1985. Statute-5 Clause-3 states that all promotions shall be by selection based on merit from among the candidates possessing the qualifications prescribed, seniority being considered when merit and efficiency are approximately equal. Clause-4 of Statute-5 states that in respect of administrative and other non-teaching staff, appointments shall be made by the Syndicate from the panel recommended by the Selection Committee constituted for this purpose by the Syndicate and such Selection Committee constituted shall consist of five members as enumerated therein. In tune with the said provisions, for filling up the post of Deputy Registrar, as referred to above, a Selection Committee was duly constituted. At that time, there were as many as 12 persons working in the University as Assistant Registrar who were qualified for being considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar. Individual call letters were therefore sent by the Registrar to all the candidates to appear for interview to be held on 19.05.2012. In the said call letter, it was indicated that the selection will be on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. 2. The petitioner and the third respondent were also included in the said panel and they received call letters. Out of 12 candidates to whom call letters were issued, one Mr. S. Pandirasu did not appear for interview. The other 11 candidates participated in the interview. The Selection Committee members separately awarded marks at the time of interview, for the candidates, on assessing their merit and efficiency. Total marks ear-marked for interview is 250. Every Selection Committee member was to award marks up to 50. Finally the Selection Committee recommended the name of the third respondent for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar. The fourth respondent had secured 186 marks out of 250, and he topped the list. The petitioner had secured only 80 marks. Accordingly, the Selection Committee recommended to the Syndicate, the name of the third respondent for promotion as Deputy Registrar. Finally the Selection Committee recommended the name of the third respondent for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar. The fourth respondent had secured 186 marks out of 250, and he topped the list. The petitioner had secured only 80 marks. Accordingly, the Selection Committee recommended to the Syndicate, the name of the third respondent for promotion as Deputy Registrar. Relying on the said recommendation and accepting the same, the University ultimately appointed the third respondent as Deputy Registrar. 3. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records carefully. 4. Among many grounds raised in the writ petition, one of the main grounds canvassed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, interview was not conducted by the Selection Committee in a fair manner so as to objectively assess the merit and efficiency of the individual candidates. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in an arbitrary manner, the interview was conducted, in which selection was made based only on 100% of marks awarded at the time of interview. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the selection based on only the interview marks offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as arbitrariness is very much possible in making such selection. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there was no scientific method adopted by the Committee to award marks at the time of interview. For these reasons, according to the petitioner, the proceedings of the Selection Committee recommending the third respondent for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar, is liable to be rejected and consequentially the order appointing the third respondent as Deputy Registrar, is liable to be set aside. 5. In the counter filed by the second respondent, it is stated that at the time of interview, the merit and efficiency of each candidate was objectively assessed by the members of the Selection Committee who are all experts, and only based on the same, selection was made. It is further stated that there is no arbitrariness in the selection. It is further stated that the comparative merits and suitability of candidates which were assessed by the Selection Committee, cannot be reassessed by means of a judicial review. It is further stated that there is no arbitrariness in the selection. It is further stated that the comparative merits and suitability of candidates which were assessed by the Selection Committee, cannot be reassessed by means of a judicial review. It is also stated that the petitioner, who had participated in the interview, subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee, is precluded from challenging the ultimate selection, after having come to know that he had not been selected. Thus, according to the second respondent, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The third respondent has filed a separate counter, wherein he has almost adopted the stand taken by the first respondent. With regard to the comparative merits of the petitioner and the third respondent, he would state that he is more meritorious than the petitioner. The third respondent has also prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have considered the above submissions. 8. At the outset, let us have a quick look into the legal position on this subject. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, reported in AIR 1981 SUPREME COURT 487. That was a case where admission by the Educational Institution by allotting 33 1/3% of total marks for oral interview was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately held that allocating more than 15% of marks for interview is likely to lead to arbitrariness offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the marks allocated for interview should not exceed 15% of the total marks. In paragraph-19 of the judgment, after having served the legal position, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “We are of the view that, under the existing circumstances, allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid.” 9. Very recently, in Indian Council for Agricultural Research v. D.Sundara Raju, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 605 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider the same issue. That was a case of promotion based on interview marks. Very recently, in Indian Council for Agricultural Research v. D.Sundara Raju, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 605 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider the same issue. That was a case of promotion based on interview marks. In that judgment, after having surveyed all the previous judgments, including Ajay Hasia's case, referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 42 and 43, has held as follows: “42. The appellants were totally unjustified in allocating 50% marks for the interview particularly when the appellants did not even disclose to the respondent that the interview would also be held to evaluate the suitability of the candidate for the said post. The procedure evolved by the Selection Committee for evaluating the respondent was totally arbitrary and contrary to the settled legal position. 43. The appellants themselves have found 50% marks for interview highly excessive, therefore, now the criterion has been changed from 50% to 10%. This is indicative of the fact that good sense had ultimately dawned on the appellants.” 10. Applying the above legal position to the facts and circumstances, if we look into the facts, it is crystal clear that the selection was based only on the interview marks, ie., 100% of marks allocated for interview alone. Marks were not awarded for other criteria like experience, higher education, age, seniority etc. Thus, in my considered opinion, making selection by allocating 100% marks for interview, is highly arbitrary. It is needless to point out that when 100% marks is awarded for interview and the selection is made solely on the interview marks, certainly there is likelihood of favoritism, nepotism or any other things alike. The rule of law on this aspect, finds recognition in Article 14 of the Constitution of India as a basic structure. On several occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any procedure which is likely to lead to arbitrariness is liable to be struck down, as offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That is what has been done by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgments cited supra, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that allocating more than 15% of marks for interview will be unconstitutional. That is what has been done by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgments cited supra, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that allocating more than 15% of marks for interview will be unconstitutional. Since, in the instant case, 100% marks was allocated for interview, the selection conducted by the Selection Committee is liable to be set aside and consequentially the order promoting the third respondent as Deputy Registrar is liable to be set aside. 11. The learned counsel for the second respondent would further submit the petitioner is barred from raising this issue, because, the petitioner participated in the interview subjecting himself to the requirements of the Selection Committee. Having participated in the selection, according to the learned counsel for the second respondent, it is not open for him to approach this Court belatedly challenging the very procedure followed by the Selection Committee. This submission of the learned counsel for the second respondent, though attractive, has no force for the simple reason that in this case, there was no prospectus issued indicating the method to be followed by the Selection Committee. Had it been the case that prospectus was issued indicating the mode of selection, then, the candidates who participated in the selection process, can be precluded from challenging the very selection. Regarding this legal proposition, certainly there could be no doubt. But in the case on hand, the petitioner and other candidates were not informed in advance by issuing any prospectus about the fact that selection shall be made only on the basis of 100% of marks for interview. Therefore, there would have been no occasion for the petitioner to challenge the selection process for want of time. 12. In Indian Council for Agricultural Research v. D.Sundara Raju, referred to above, precisely the very same dispute was resolved. In paragraphs-40 and 41 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the respondent therein was not disclosed to by the appellant therein that interview would be held for evaluating personal or intellectual qualities and that it shall carry 50% of the total marks. It has also been held that had the appellant therein disclosed the method of evaluation, the respondent therein would have challenged the same before participating in the selection process. It has also been held that had the appellant therein disclosed the method of evaluation, the respondent therein would have challenged the same before participating in the selection process. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said judgment, negatived the objection that the candidates therein were precluded from challenging the selection, after having participated in the selection process. This was done on the ground that it was not disclosed to the candidates as to what was the method which was going to be followed. The said principle involved in those judgments, squarely apply to the facts of the present case. As the participants were not at all disclosed that selection would be made only on the basis of the interview, this technical ground of objection raised by the respondents 1 and 2 deserves to be rejected. 13. The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the third respondent was the senior-most Assistant Registrar and he had better qualification than the other candidates who participated in the interview including the petitioner. In my considered opinion, this dispute cannot be resolved in this writ petition. The comparative merit and efficiency of the candidates as required under the Statute is to be assessed by the competent Selection Committee by following the procedure which is objective in nature, giving no room for any serious allegations, such as nepotism, favoritism etc. The test should be foolproof to assess the merit of the candidates so as to select the best among the participants for being promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar. At the same time, I do not say that there shall be no interview. Interview is also a part of the selection process recognised by the Courts of law. But what I would say is, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Selection Committee can allocate only 15% of total marks for interview and the rest of 85% of marks should be allocated for various other criteria. Therefore, I do not want to express any opinion about the comparative merits and efficiency of these candidates. 14. The learned counsel for the third respondent would further submit that after the impugned appointment order, the third respondent has been promoted as Deputy Registrar and after a period of two years, at this length of time if he is disturbed, it will cause serious prejudice to the third respondent. 14. The learned counsel for the third respondent would further submit that after the impugned appointment order, the third respondent has been promoted as Deputy Registrar and after a period of two years, at this length of time if he is disturbed, it will cause serious prejudice to the third respondent. This argument is not acceptable to this Court. Once it is found that the selection process was not only arbitrary but also illegal, the selection should be set aside and consequentially this Court has to give liberty to the University to make a fresh selection to fill up the said post. Until such selection is made, as an interim measure, the University will be at liberty to put any Assistant Registrar in-charge as Deputy Registrar, who may even be the third respondent. I do not want to express any opinion as to who will be in-charge of the post of Deputy Registrar. It is for the University to decide about it. 15. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that a reasonable time may be given to complete the selection process. He submitted that eight weeks time may be granted for the said purpose. I am inclined to do so, by issuing a direction to the respondent University to complete the selection process and give promotion to the selected candidate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that one of the candidates who participated earlier in the interview is no more, and one has retired. Therefore, the question of calling a retired person for interview does not arise. The learned counsel for the second respondent would further submit that four more persons who originally participated in the present selection process, have been promoted as Deputy Registrar subsequently. They may also be called to participate in the present interview if they are willing for the same. It shall be appropriate for the University, more particularly the Selection Committee, to issue call letters to the 10 persons, excluding the person dead and the person retired, conduct selection process among the said 10 candidates and make selection by strictly adhering to the Statute on the basis of merit and efficiency. 17. It shall be appropriate for the University, more particularly the Selection Committee, to issue call letters to the 10 persons, excluding the person dead and the person retired, conduct selection process among the said 10 candidates and make selection by strictly adhering to the Statute on the basis of merit and efficiency. 17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order appointing the third respondent as Deputy Registrar of Alagappa University, Karaikudi, is hereby set aside. It is further directed that the Syndicate of the Alagappa University shall constitute a fresh Selection Committee and such Selection Committee shall conduct selection from the 10 candidates who are available, as indicated above and make appropriate recommendations for appointment. Based on the same, the University shall consider and make appropriate promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until the selection process is completed and a person is appointed on promotion as Deputy Registrar, the University shall be at liberty to put any Assistant Registrar in-charge of Deputy Registrar's post, who may even be the third respondent himself and it is absolutely within the domain of the University. 18. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.