JUDGMENT : Mohammed Nias. C.P, J. The unsuccessful petitioner, who challenged the appointment of the 4th respondent to the post of Assistant Director in the Department of Physical Education in the University of Kerala on deputation basis, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification is the appellant. The appellant as well as the 4th respondent were interviewed on 14.12.2017 by the Selection Committee. The 4th respondent was selected on the basis of obtaining 1.9 marks more than the writ petitioner. The marks given under the various heads to the seven candidates who participated in the selection process are extracted below:- “Selection to the post of Assistant Director Department of Physical Education, on Deputation Date of Interview : 14th December 2017 Notification No.Ad.Dl.I.DPE/43722/2017 dated 16.08.2017 Sl. No Name of the candidate Category Academic Record and Research Performance Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills Interview Total Rank Remarks 1 Jayarajan David OBC 30.9 25 18 73.9 I 2 Prasanna Kumaran.K 26 25 5 56 3 Razia K.J. OBC 42 25 5 72 4 Rose Niex.P.K. 19 25 5 49 5 Sujanesh K.Das OBC 23 12 10 45 6 G.P.Sudheer 45 12 11 68 7 Xavier.G OBC 23.8 25 2 53.8 2. The petitioner questions the selection on the specific allegation that the academic qualification and experience of the petitioner was ignored while selecting the 4th respondent and in spite of giving 13 marks more in the interview to the 4th respondent, there is a difference of only 1.9 marks more to the 4th respondent which led to her selection. The excessive award of marks in the interview according to the petitioner is a highly arbitrary action. The prescription with regard to the research publication, paper presentation, academic experience, which ought to have been the main criteria for the selection going by the norms of the University Grants Commission (UGC) were all overlooked in the selection process. 3. The University contended that the Selection Committee was constituted as per the UGC guidelines and the marks were also awarded as per the same, and therefore, there is no illegality in the selection and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The 4th respondent did not enter appearance despite service of notice in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal. 5. 4. The 4th respondent did not enter appearance despite service of notice in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal. 5. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter dismissed the writ petition on the solitary ground that the appellant having participated in the selection process was estopped from challenging the selection process relying on the judgment in D.Saroja Kumari v. R.Helen Thilakom and Others [ (2017) 9 SCC 478 ]. 6. We have heard the learned senior counsel Sri.George Poonthottam, assisted by Sri.A.L.Navaneeth Krishnan for the appellant and Sri.Thomas Abraham, the learned standing Counsel for the respondent-university. 7. Before us, the learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge is wrong in as much as the challenge to the award of marks in the interview, borne out from Ext.P7, was not considered at all by the learned Single Judge and a mere glance of the same would have revealed the favouritism shown to the 4th respondent. When the entire process was vitiated by the arbitrariness and favouritism, such selection ought to have been interfered with. Despite the appellant getting more marks under the head for the academic records and research performance, only due to the excessive marks for the interview awarded to the 4th respondent, she was favoured and selected. 8. The learned counsel for the University reiterated before us that the selection was conducted in accordance with the UGC guidelines and no illegality can be attributed to the selection of the 4th respondent. No counter affidavit dealing with the allegations raised in the writ petition has been placed on record. 9. Having considered the rival contentions, we are of the firm view that the dismissal of the writ petition on the solitary ground of participating the selection process was clearly wrong and liable to be interfered with. Simply because the appellant has participated in the selection process did not mean that the appellant had acquiesced to the illegality in the selection process. (See DR (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar and Others [ (2019) 20 SCC 17 ]). The petitioner essentially questioned the award of excessive marks in the interview to the 4th respondent, which the appellant could have been aware only after the selection of the 4th respondent and the same is the cause of action herein for challenging the selection process. The petitioner essentially questioned the award of excessive marks in the interview to the 4th respondent, which the appellant could have been aware only after the selection of the 4th respondent and the same is the cause of action herein for challenging the selection process. Thus the award of marks without any basis is a matter which the appellant could have challenged and no principal of estoppel prevents the appellant from questioning the same. 10. It is trite that the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegalities committed in a selection process. It is also relevant to note that it cannot be possible for a candidate to have locus to assail an illegality or an infringement of the provisions of the Constitution that happens in a selection process unless there is participation in the same. 11. Coming to the merits of the case, we find on a perusal of the marks extracted above, that the selected candidate has been given highest marks in the interview viz., 18 out of the maximum of 20 marks. The 4th respondent had got only 30.90 marks under the head 'academic record and research performance' and 25 under the head 'domain knowledge and teaching skills', thus totalling to 73.9 marks. The appellant was given 42 marks under the head 'academic record and research performance' and 25 marks under the head 'domain knowledge and teaching skills' and just 5 marks for 'interview' and totalling 72 marks. It is worthy to note that the appellant had at an earlier point of time served in the very post under the University on deputation and the same is evident from Ext.P4 certificate granted by the University. Considering the marks awarded to the 4th respondent as stated above, we hold that the award of marks under the head 'interview' was without any basis or rationale and which led to the wrongful selection. We do so also for the reason that no plausible explanation is on record from the side of the University. 12. Considering the marks awarded to the 4th respondent as stated above, we hold that the award of marks under the head 'interview' was without any basis or rationale and which led to the wrongful selection. We do so also for the reason that no plausible explanation is on record from the side of the University. 12. The learned senior counsel for the appellant cites the judgment in Deepthy Vijayakumar v. Joint Registrar of Co.op Societies, Thrissur and Others [ 2008(4) KHC 44 ] to argue that the facts would reveal that the interview was conducted in such a manner to favour the 4th respondent, the manner in marks were given under the head 'interview' would speak for itself and favouritism is to be inferred. As we have already held, a look at the marks awarded (extracted above) shows that the 4th respondent was wrongly preferred over the appellant, by giving higher marks in the interview. Such a selection cannot be upheld and the action of the University in selecting the 4th respondent is nothing but abusing the power conferred on it. We declare the appointment of the 4th respondent to be bad for the reasoning stated above. Accordingly we set aside the same. 13. We note that in several cases where the selection process is challenged, which is not infrequent, on account of the delay in adjudicating the merits of the same, it becomes impossible to grant any worthwhile relief by the time the matter is taken up for final hearing and in many cases the beneficiary of a wrong selection profit from such delays. A Litigant should not only get justice but it has to be timely as well which is required for the continued confidence of the citizenry in the justice delivery system. Delivering justice has a connection with the time consumed in rendering justice. When at the appropriate moment the justice is not rendered what we are administer then is no longer full justice, it may even be injustice. Prompt justice is true justice. 14. Delivering justice has a connection with the time consumed in rendering justice. When at the appropriate moment the justice is not rendered what we are administer then is no longer full justice, it may even be injustice. Prompt justice is true justice. 14. In the light of what is stated above, while setting aside the selection of the 4th respondent, we also direct that the petitioner be appointed forthwith as the Assistant Director in the Department of Physical Education consequent to Ext.P1 selection process till a regular appointment to the post of Assistant Director in the Department of Physical Education, which we are told is underway, is completed. The appellant will be allowed to function as Assistant Director in the Department of Physical Education till the new incumbent joins duty after the proposed selection for a regular appointment. We trust this direction will offer some solace to the appellant who had to wait for almost four years to get this relief and can enjoy the fruits of the litigation only for a few days considering that there is a fresh selection process underway for a regular appointment as Assistant Director in the Department of Physical Education. Although, we are not happy with the selection process carried out by the University resulting in the 4th respondent becoming the beneficiary of an illegal selection, we refrain from imposing any costs on the University or from directing the 4th respondent to disgorge the benefits obtained by him. The writ appeal is allowed as above.