Allowing a petition filed by one R Yathavamoorthi, son of an ex-serviceman, Justice T S Sivagnanam said the notification had clearly stated that one post is reserved for GTP category. "The university could have chosen a non-priority candidate only if no candidate was available under GTP category"
"The reservation (for GTP) contemplated in the notification sought to be diluted by the University by relying on G.O. which was not relevant to this post," the Judge said.
The judge said the University could not compare the priority candidate and non-priority candidate as this question did not arise as the former was more qualified.
He also described as illogical the manner in which marks were awarded to the candidates and noted the petitioner had scored higher marks than the selected candidate.
More From This Section
The judge said the petitioner should have been awarded more marks for his post graduate qualification. The petitioner had secured overall grade point average of 8.16 out of 10 in his PG course but had not been awarded any marks. But the selected candidate who obtained 9.6 out of 10 had been given 20 marks.
He directed the petitioner to be appointed in her place as the Assistant Professor of Fish Processing Technology discipline.