47. Based on the general concept as detailed above, the screening committee, at the initial stage, had not considered the case of the third respondent for the post of Associate Professor in Aerospace Engineering. However, it is submitted that the candidature of the third respondent was once again reappreciated by the Screening Committee and he was thereafter called for interview which is evident from the counter filed by the second respondent. Thereafter, during interview the Selection Committee, comprising of members, more particularly, the Head of Department of Aerospace Engineering of Anna University and Professors from Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and one retired Professor of Anna University, who are experts in the field of aeronautical engineering, after going through the credentials of the third respondent, more particularly his doctorate program, wherein he had done thesis in Design and Development of Terminal Phase Flight Control System for Unmanned Air Vehicle and further looking into his academic research in various fields and based on the presentation given by him and his performance in the interview had selected him for appointment as Associate Professor and by this selection the reconsidered decision of the Screening Committee to call the third respondent for interview stands vindicated by the fact that he topped the merit list by scoring the maximum marks amongst the three candidates who applied for the said post and in the general turn category, he stood first pushing the petitioner down the list. Thus, the judgment of Supreme Court relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Mohad.Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University and others, 2009 (4) SCC 555, is not applicable to the facts of the case.
