JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.28376 of 2024, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P13 rank list for the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce (CQ) dated nil published by the 6 th respondent Manager, Fatima Mata National College (Autonomous), Kollam; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 to issue strict directions to respondents 6 and 7 to strictly follow the guidelines in Ext.P14 notification dated 18.07.2018 issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) while effecting appointments; and direct respondents 6 and 7 to conduct fresh interview for the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce, in pursuance of Ext.P10 notification, strictly following Ext.P14 guidelines dated 18.07.2018 of the 5 th respondent University Grants Commission (UGC). 2. The appellant-writ petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Assistant Professor in Fatima Mata National College (Autonomous), Kollam, who submitted an application pursuant to Ext.P10 notification dated 12.10.2023 appeared in Malayala Manorama daily. The document marked as Ext.P11 is a copy of the application dated 04.07.2024 made by the petitioner. The documents regarding the educational qualifications and experience of the petitioner are placed on record as Exts.P1 to P9. The grievance of the petitioner was that by adopting an irregular process, Ext.P13 rank list was published, without including her name. Overlooking her better claim, the name of respondents 8 to 10 are included in Ext.P13 rank list. 3. On 25.07.2024, when the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Single Judge admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3. The respective Standing Counsel took notice for respondents 4 and 5. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 6 to 10. The learned Single Judge passed an interim order dated 25.07.2024, in which it was made clear that the appointment of respondents 8 to 10 shall be subject to the result of that writ petition. 4. Respondents 6 and 7 have filed a counter affidavit dated 17.08.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R6(a) to R6(c) documents. The document marked as Ext.R6(a) is a copy of the academic score sheet prepared by the selection committee on 06.07.2024, for the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce. 4. Respondents 6 and 7 have filed a counter affidavit dated 17.08.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R6(a) to R6(c) documents. The document marked as Ext.R6(a) is a copy of the academic score sheet prepared by the selection committee on 06.07.2024, for the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce. Ext.R6(b) is a copy of the consolidated interview scores of the candidates prepared by the selection committee dated 06.07.2024 for the said post and Ext.R6(c) is a photocopy of the minutes of the selection committee dated 06.07.2024. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for 4 th respondent Kerala University has filed a statement dated 18.10.2024, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) documents. The document marked as Ext.R4(a) is a copy of the relevant pages of UGC Regulations, 2018 and Ext.R4(b) is a copy of the Appendix II (Table 3B) of the UGC Regulations, 2018. 6. On behalf of the 5 th respondent University Grants Commission, a counter affidavit dated 03.10.2024 was placed on record, producing therewith Ext.R5(a) relevant extract of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018. 7. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 18.03.2025, dismissed the writ petition since the petitioner failed to make out any valid ground for interfering with the process of selection. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this writ appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. 8. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala University for the 4 th respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the University Grants Commission for the 5 th respondent, the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 and also the learned counsel for the 8 th respondent. 9. The issue that requires consideration in this writ appeal is as to whether any interference is warranted on the judgment of the learned Single Judge in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. 10. 9. The issue that requires consideration in this writ appeal is as to whether any interference is warranted on the judgment of the learned Single Judge in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner would contend that the contention raised by the appellant regarding mala fides in including the person named in paragraph 11 of the writ petition as a member of the interview board was not considered by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge warrants interference in this writ appeal. 11. On the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7, namely, the Manager and Principal of Fatima Mata National College (Autonomous), the learned Standing Counsel for the 4 th respondent University of Kerala and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent State and the official respondents, i.e., respondents 2 and 3, would point out that the person named in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, against whom certain allegations have been made in the writ petition, was not made a party to the writ petition. Moreover, as discernible from the impugned judgment, no such contention was raised before the learned Single Judge. 12. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we find that the person named in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, against whom certain allegations have been made in the writ petition, was not made a party to the writ petition. Further, a reading of the impugned judgment would not show that such a contention was raised by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, during the course of arguments. After considering the rival contentions raised at the Bar, the learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that no grounds are made out for interfering with Ext.P13 rank list for the post of Assistant Professor Commerce (CQ) published by the 6 th respondent Manager, Fatima Mata National College (Autonomous). The said reasoning of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal, warranting an interference in this appeal. In the result, this writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.