Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The answer was simple. The UGC Regulation dated September 18, 2010 was amended by a Regulation dated June 13, 2013, which did away with the requirement of allotting any marks at an interview. The regulation in question had a concept of screening warranting marks to be allocated as under:-

        Sub-Category                                Cap as % of
                                                    API
                                                    cumulative
                                                    score     in
                                                    application
        III (A) : Research papers (Journals,        30%
        etc.)
        III (B) : Research Publications             25%
        (Books, etc.)
        III (C) Research Projects                   20%
        III (D) Research Guidance                   10%
        III (E) Training Courses and                15%
        Conference/Seminar, etc.

12. Thereafter using the API Scores for purposes of screening only, the regulation stipulated that it would have no bearing on expert assessment of candidates at the stage of interview.

13. The grievance of the appellant overlooks that in the year 2013, the regulation of the year 2010 had been superseded.

14. We have looked into the relevant record and we find that appellant obtained 100 out of 100 points in the API Score, so did three out of the four empanelled candidates. One named Dr.Shazia Omair obtained 80 out of 100 points in the API Score. Whereas she was empanelled along with three others who had obtained 100 out of 100 points in the API Score, the appellant was not.

17. No personal mala-fide being alleged against the members of the Screening Committee, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant because it is neither here nor there that whereas he obtained 100 out of 100 points in API Score and Dr.Shazia Omair obtained only 80 points in the API Score because the regulation of the year 2013 warrants empanelment based on an overall performance and with emphasis on the performance at the interview.

18. The appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs.