JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P4 order of the Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 02.07.2016, on the ground that the same is passed in absolute violation of the stipulations contained in Ext.P2 issued by the Director of Collegiate Education dated 22.12.2015. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows. 2. Petitioner is working as Assistant Professor of English in the Collegiate Education Department and now working in Sri. C. Achutha Menon Government College, Thrissur. Second respondent invited application for State sponsored, post doctoral research programmes outside the State, as per Ext.P2. Petitioner who is qualified in terms of Ext.P2 applied and participated in the selection process. Ext.P2 envisages two stages of selection by committee/expert panel. However, the 2nd respondent abandoned the 1st stage and the 2nd stage interview was conducted by a single person, instead of an expert panel. The said person made assessment of the 1st stage as well. The entire process was conducted in an illegal manner and the selection process is vitiated for the violation of mandatory provisions of Ext.P2. As a result of the said selection process, ineligible candidates and candidates ranked below the petitioner, were selected. Even though petitioner has submitted a representation, the same was not considered. Thereupon, petitioner has approached this Court and secured Ext.P7 judgment to consider and pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner within ten days from the date of the said judgment. In spite of the direction so issued, the subject issue was not considered by the 2nd respondent, and the representation submitted by the petitioner was not allowed, evident from Ext.P9 order. Petitioner has produced certain additional documents viz. Exts.P10 to P12 to substantiate the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. 3. Second respondent has filed a statement and a counter affidavit also to the writ petition. In the counter affidavit, the contentions raised by the petitioner with respect to the violation of the stipulations contained in Ext.P2 are clearly admitted. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the personal interview was conducted by an individual person selected from a panel of experts, moreover, the said person who conducted the interview itself awarded marks for the 1st stage of the selection process. 4. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the personal interview was conducted by an individual person selected from a panel of experts, moreover, the said person who conducted the interview itself awarded marks for the 1st stage of the selection process. 4. Petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition and has produced Ext.P13, which is a reply issued by the 2nd respondent to another person informing that the funds were not released so far. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 10th respondent. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 6. The question to be considered in this writ petition revolves round the selection process stipulated in Ext.P2, which reads that, there will be two stage selection process for the scheme. In the first stage, proposals will be invited from the faculty members through a communication to the Principals of Government Arts and Science Colleges. The applicants were directed to submit a Professional Portfolio (Extended Curriculum Vitae) following a given format and highlighting their research activities. A research proposal outlining the nature of work to be undertaken and also its benefits to the academic community are directed to be presented along with a formal sanction letter from the host institution, where the candidate proposes to undertake the work utilizing the scholarship. The proposals submitted by faculty members will be assessed by a committee and a total of 30 applicants will be invited for a personal interaction before an expert panel comprising subject experts. 7. It is also submitted that during the personal interaction (interview) in the second stage of the selection process, the candidates will have to defend their research proposals, and based on the strength of the proposals and their presentation, a rank list will be prepared giving as much representation as possible to various disciplines. That apart, the point scheme for assessing the candidates are also mentioned thereunder. Stage I Assessment of Portfolio is having a total of 75 points bifurcated, for score based on the Portfolio also (Academic Aspects - 50 points and strength of the research proposal - 25 points). Stage II Personal Interaction has got total 25 marks divided into two. 15 points for the presentation of the research proposal and 10 points for the Communication Skill/Attitude. Stage II Personal Interaction has got total 25 marks divided into two. 15 points for the presentation of the research proposal and 10 points for the Communication Skill/Attitude. These are the parameters provided under Ext.P2 for the selection process. However, from Ext.P5 series of mark sheets for Post Doctoral Scholarship of petitioner and others, it is evident that the valuation of the two stages stipulated in Ext.P2 was done by a single expert chosen from Ext.P4 panel. Marks were also awarded by the single expert for both the stages. 8. Therefore, taking into account the totality of the circumstances and evaluation made from the documents produced by the petitioner and the pleadings put forth by respondents 1 and 3, it is categoric and clear that the stipulations contained for selection process in Ext.P2 were clearly violated. The 1st stage of the process had to be done by a committee, that did not take place. The personal interview had to be conducted by an expert panel comprising of subject experts. That also did not take place. Therefore, the respondents have deviated from the rules of the game. Respondents also could not establish before this Court the source of power secured by them to deviate from the parameters and stipulations provided in Ext.P2. 9. That being the situation, I am of the considered opinion that the actions of the respondents 1 and 2 are totally illegal, arbitrary and unfair warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, Exts.P4 and P9 are quashed and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to re-conduct the selection process in accordance with the stipulations contained under Ext.P2 and attain finality to the same at the earliest and at any rate, on or before 31.03.2017. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.