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