Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: API score in Dr. Archana Kanungo vs State Of Odisha And Another on 28 March, 2024Matching Fragments
3. The appellant's documents were verified and she was allowed to participate in the interview held on 12.12.2022.
4. The OPSC thereafter published a list of successful candidates in which the appellant's name did not figure. With a claim that the appellant had performed very well and her API score was 102 as per the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (in short 'UGC Regulations'), she approached this Court by filing writ petition giving rise to W.P.(C) No.36916 of 2022. She also alleged that the principle of horizontal reservation for sports persons was not followed by the OPSC.
5. The OPSC in its counter affidavit in the writ proceeding controverted the statement of the appellant that the UGC guidelines were not followed in the selection process. OPSC also took a plea that since the appellant could not qualify in the original merit (vertical) list of unreserved (Women) candidates, there was no question of applying horizontal reservation. A specific stand was taken on behalf of the OPSC that the appellant did not secure minimum qualifying marks of 50% in the interview. The OPSC also denied the appellant's claim of having secured 102 marks under the API score since as per the UGC Guidelines, maximum API score could be 100 against which the appellant had scored 73 only.
6. The appellant argued before the learned Single Judge that one post i.e. 1% of the 12 vacancies in Sociology discipline ought to have been earmarked for sportspersons as per the advertisement, which the OPSC had not done. Secondly, she being a brilliant scholar with several research publications to her credit, had performed very well in the interview but was deliberately given less marks. She questioned the correctness of determination of her API score and reiterated that her API score ought to have been taken as 102. She also alleged that OPSC had illegally fixed the cutoff marks in the interview though the same was never mentioned in the advertisement.