JUDGMENT : The petitioners say that they have applied to the 1st respondent – “Kerala Kalamandalam (Deemed to be) University for Art and Culture” ('Kerala Kalamandalam' for short), for being directly admitted to the PhD course in Cultural Studies and had taken part in the selection process. They say that even though each of them scored very high marks in the written test, they were deliberately awarded exiguously low marks in the interview and that this shows a design of being deliberately denied the seats, to favour the party respondents. 2. Sri.N.M.Madhu – learned counsel for the petitioners, explained his clients' case, saying that the marks awarded to them, as also the party respondents, would make the position absolutely clear, without requirement of any further expatiation. His submissions in this regard can be tabulated as under: Marks in written test Marks in interview Petitioner No. 1 47 2 Petitioner No. 2 46 2 Petitioner No. 3 48 2 Petitioner No. 4 41 4 Respondent No. 3 45 23 Respondent No. 4 36 23 Respondent No. 5 35 23 Respondent No. 6 34 23 Respondent No. 7 41 15 Respondent No. 8 44 11 Respondent No. 9 42 13 Respondent No. 10 36 17 Respondent No. 11 29 23 Respondent No. 12 32 20 3. Sri.N.M.Madhu thus submitted that it is manifest that marks in interview were awarded to his clients deliberately low, so as to exclude them from the purview of consideration, solely to favour the party respondents. 4. Sri.N.M.Madhu, thereafter added to his submissions saying that, going by the Tabulation of the selection process produced on record by the Kerala Kalamandalam, along with their Memo dated 11.08.2022, only two members of the “Research Committee” had participated in the interview. He submitted that this is flagrantly in violation of the Prospectus published by them, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P1, which makes it limpid that the admission shall be on the basis of an entrance examination and an interview, conducted by the “Research Committee”. He then took me to Ext.R1(e), produced by the Kerala Kalamandalam, to show me that the “Research Committee” has five members, one of whom is the Dean of the respective subject, ex-officio. He then took me to Ext.R1(e), produced by the Kerala Kalamandalam, to show me that the “Research Committee” has five members, one of whom is the Dean of the respective subject, ex-officio. He thus argued that since the interview in this case was conducted by two members of the “Research Committee”, without the subject expert being on board, it is clear that it was vitiated; and consequently that his clients were entitled to be considered for the seats, based on their marks in the written test. 5. In response, however, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Kalamandalam, submitted that there is no Rule or Regulation applicable mandating that every member of the “Research Committee” should participate in the interview. He further argued that there is no quorum fixed for the “Research Committee” and therefore, that even one among them could act as such; adding that, in the case at hand, there were two members who conducted the interview. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 6. Pertinently, Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy – learned Standing Counsel for the University Grants Commission (UGC), submitted that there are no Regulations published by his client mandating an institution like Kerala Kalamandalam to conduct their selection process in a particular manner. He submitted that the only Regulation which is applicable is the “UGC Institutions (Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2016” (hereinafter referred to as the UGC Regulations, 2016), which, through Regulation 6.5(vi) thereof, provides that the process of admission and selection of eligible candidates, applying for admission, shall be as stipulated by the Institution in their Prospectus. He submitted that, therefore, the UGC has no comment to make on the factual controversies projected in this case. 7. Sri.S.Prasanth – learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 10, submitted that the assertions of the petitioners as argued by their learned counsel – Sri.N.M.Madhu, are, ex facie, incorrect because his clients have also obtained very high marks in the written test. He submitted that since their performance in the interview was obviously far better than that of the petitioners, they were given appropriate benefit, thus making them eligible for the seats in question. He concluded his submissions saying that the petitioners could not have challenged the process, after having participated in it, on the ground that the interview was vitiated. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 8. He concluded his submissions saying that the petitioners could not have challenged the process, after having participated in it, on the ground that the interview was vitiated. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 8. Normally, this Court will be loath to enter into the validity or merit of any selection process, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the institution. It is also well established that, in Administrative Law, Courts evaluate not the decision but the decision making process. In other words, if the prescribed processes are followed and implicitly adhered with, then there would be no room for this Court to enter or to interfere. 9. In the afore perspective, the only aspect that gains my attention is the fact that the “Research Committee” is admitted to have conducted the interview with only two out of its five members in attendance. 10. As rightly argued by Sri.N.M.Madhu, going by Ext.P1 Prospectus, the interview is to be conducted by the “Research Committee”; and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Kalamandalam -also affirms this. 11. Therefore, the sole relevant question is whether, in this case, the “Research Committee” had acted correctly, in being represented by only two among their members. Of course, it is the submission of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – as is also contained in the additional counter affidavit filed by his client on 06.10.2022 – that the Vice Chancellor was also part of the interview process and that three members of the committee had personal inconvenience, which prevented them from participating in the interview. As I said above, it is also his specific case that there is no quorum fixed for the “Research Committee”, and hence that even one of its members could have conducted the interview. 12. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, for the reasons that I presently state. 13. It is indubitable from Ext.R1(e) order of the Kerala Kalamandalam dated 10.11.2020, that the Vice Chancellor had constituted the “Research Committee” with five members, one of whom is the subject expert – being the Dean of the concerned discipline. 13. It is indubitable from Ext.R1(e) order of the Kerala Kalamandalam dated 10.11.2020, that the Vice Chancellor had constituted the “Research Committee” with five members, one of whom is the subject expert – being the Dean of the concerned discipline. There is nothing in Ext.R1(e) to show that the Committee could act with one or two among them and this is vital because, going through the “Regulations for Integrated Mphil/Ph.D & Direct Ph.D Programmes 2019” – a copy of which has been produced by them as Ext.R1(f) - the “Research Committee” is vested with the duty of conducting interview for admission to the MPhil/PhD Programme; conducting interview for the Direct PhD Programme; assessing the proposals and recommending registration of the PhD Programme; and assigning Supervising teachers to the research scholars, if necessary. 14. It is, therefore, indubitable that the “Research Committee” has wide powers and vital responsibilities; and I fail to understand how the 'Kerala Kalamandalam' now says that even one among those members can do all these functions in the absence of the others. 15. As far as this case is concerned, the situation is far more grave because, when Ext.R1(f) Regulations relating to the “Research Committee” provide that one of its members shall be a subject expert, namely the Dean of the concerned discipline, his or her absence from the Interview process certainly causes serious concern. The available credentials of the two persons who were part of the Interview Board do not show that they were capable to act in lieu of the Dean of the concerned discipline; and hence in the absence of specific subject experts, the evaluation of the candidates can only be found to be without proper procedure being followed. 16. In this context, the submission of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – as also averred in the counter affidavit of the 'Kerala Kalamandalam' -that the Vice Chancellor was part of the interview process, can only make the situation worse because, going by the tabulation on record, it is clear that the said Authority had not offered any mark to any candidate. It records indubitably that only the Chairperson and another member had awarded marks, and this is expressly admitted by the Kerala Kalamandalam also. 17. That being said, as I have already seen above, the functions of the “Research Committee” cannot be taken lightly. It records indubitably that only the Chairperson and another member had awarded marks, and this is expressly admitted by the Kerala Kalamandalam also. 17. That being said, as I have already seen above, the functions of the “Research Committee” cannot be taken lightly. They are expected to evaluate the worth of the candidates applying for MPhil and PhD, as also to recommend registration of the PhD Programme, along with assigning Supervising teachers to research scholars. If it is accepted that such vital functions can be even done by one of the members of the said Committee, it would certainly lead to a situation where nepotism and capriciousness would come to have a role to play. I am not saying for a moment that such factors have crept up in this case, but certainly this is a possibility. Therefore, to take this as a general rule and then to justify the present selection process would be deleterious to the Kerala Kalamandalam itself, because it would then set up a precedent, to be followed in future also. I am, therefore, firm that it is in their own interest that interviews are not conducted in this manner and that either the Committee sits in full, or at least with the subject expert in future. 18. Coming back to the case at hand, in the absence of the subject expert, who is part of the “Research Committee”, in the process of interview of the candidates, I am left without doubt that the petitioners have been prejudiced. 19. Before I move forward, I must record that when this matter was earlier considered by a learned Judge of this Court for admission, an order of stay was granted, directing that the proceedings initiated on the basis of Ext.P4 notification be not completed. Thereafter on 07.06.2022, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan -learned standing counsel for the Kerala Kalamandalam, prayed that the afore order be modified because on account of the same, even the party respondents had been denied admission to the seats. He had added that even if this Court is to find in favour of the petitioners, they would not be put to prejudice, because, additional seats can be provided, subject to their eligibility. I, therefore, indited the following order on that day: “Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned SC for University submits that on account of this writ petition, research of respondents 3 to 16 are held up. I, therefore, indited the following order on that day: “Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned SC for University submits that on account of this writ petition, research of respondents 3 to 16 are held up. He added that petitioners would not get any benefit out of this and that in any event of the matter, this Court is to find in their favour, additional seats can be provided to them subject to their eligibility. Recording the afore submission, I vacate the interim order granted by this Court on 09.02.2022; clarifying that the petitioners will be accommodated into available seats or to be created in the event they are found eligible.” 20. The conspectus of my observations above surely lead me to the undoubted opinion that the assessment of the petitioners by the Interview Board was improper and insufficient and that the “Research Committee” should be directed to do so again. Of course, since the 'Kerala Kalamandalam' maintains that the party respondents have been validly selected, I do not think that they are required to be put to any detriment or to any revaluation. This is particularly because of the afore submission of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, that if the petitioners are found eligible, they can be admitted through additional seats. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition with the following directions: (a) The Research Committee of the Kerala Kalamandalam will re-interview the petitioners and award them fresh marks in terms of their performance. (b) On the afore being done, the performance of the petitioners will be reassessed, adding the marks they have obtained in the written examination; and if they or any of them are thus found eligible to more or equal marks than the last among the party respondents, additional seats will be created and they be admitted to the same. The afore exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To be spoken to on 24.11.2022 After I delivered judgment on 22.11.2022, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Kalamandalam, requested that this matter be listed today, since some crucial information had been omitted to be brought to the notice of this Court, though pleaded in his client's pleadings. 2. To be spoken to on 24.11.2022 After I delivered judgment on 22.11.2022, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Kalamandalam, requested that this matter be listed today, since some crucial information had been omitted to be brought to the notice of this Court, though pleaded in his client's pleadings. 2. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan said that, going by paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter pleadings of his client, the educational credentials of the petitioners are suspect and that this is also a matter that may be left to be assessed, while the afore exercise is completed. 3. It is needless to say that the purport of the afore directions is that the petitioners be assessed validly on all counts; and obviously, the afore requested liberty is always available to the Kerala Kalamandalam, when they complete the exercise above directed.