that, having crossed the qualifying stage and having participated in the final stages, the Petitioner’s non-selection was unjustified, particularly when posts in the discipline of Management were advertised against the SC category. It is urged that under the 2017 advertisement, one SC vacancy existed in DSM and another in USME, and that the Selection Committee’s decision to record “none found suitable” for the SC post in USME is arbitrary. Once a reserved post is advertised, the University ought to fill it in accordance with the reservation policy, and cannot take a recourse that defeats reservation. He further contends that the evaluation process, especially at the presentation and interview stage, was opaque and did not disclose a rational basis for why the Petitioner was found unsuitable. In this context, the Petitioner sought information under the RTI Act and made representations, but the responses did not meaningfully address the substance of his grievance. He also relies on the order passed in the earlier proceedings, W.P.(C) 4055/2019, directing consideration of his representation. The Petitioner submits that the order dated 6th May, 2019 is mechanical and does not meet the standard of a reasoned decision, since it merely records that the Selection Committee did not recommend him and that no SC vacancy in DSM existed as on that date.
