Petitioner P.I.Ganesan, a retired professor in the university, contended that the process further to the November 26, 2016 advertisement was illegal, unconstitutional and null and void on the ground that higher marks had been set apart for interview.
Stating that a total of 35 marks had been earmarked for interview, he claimed it will not ensure transparent recruitment and lead to nepotism.
The selection process was bogus and fraudulent and directly in violation of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia's case, he submitted.
The bench posted the matter to June 9 for further hearing.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
