Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: API score in Dr. Pradip Dey vs The State Of Tripura on 29 January, 2026Matching Fragments
9) So as per the addendum dt. 30.04.2021 the appellant is eligible for consideration for the post of Assistant Professor in Education though he did not have Ph.D in Education and possessed only Ph.D in Political Science. The counsel for the respondents No.5 also does not dispute this.
10) Admittedly, the TPSC, after constituting a scrutiny committee for API calculation, and on the basis of scrutiny committee's recommendation, published the API scores of candidates. In that list, the appellant as well as the respondents No.5 secured API score of 82/100.
11) Thereafter 7 days time was given to file representations to all shortlisted candidates including the respondents No.5.
12) Though 23 representations were received and were considered, the respective respondents No.5 gave no such representation challenging the API score given to appellant in those 7 days.
13) The final API Score was published on 23.9.2021 and the TPSC published the result on 1.12.2021. Thereafter an interview was held by TPSC on 08.11.2021 and the appellant was recommended for appointment for the said post on 3.12.2021. The State appointed appellant as Asst. Professor in Education subject on 1.2.2022.
28) Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the TPSC for awarding 25 marks for the Ph.D qualification possessed by the appellant in the API score to the appellant though his Ph.D is not in the subject of Education.
29) When admittedly the appellant as well as the respective respondents No.5 were found qualified for interview on the basis of their API score, and in the interview, the appellant was selected, and not the respective respondents No.5, it is not permissible for them to question the appointment of the appellant on untenable grounds, particularly, when they had not chosen to complain against the grant of the API Score to the appellant.