Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Management. The claim raised by the petitioners on the basis of their academic qualifications and other credentials are disputed by the 4th respondent. That apart, it is submitted that the University has nominated its representatives to the statutory selection committee. The API score sheet/tabulation sheet of the marks of the applicants of the interviews serialled as item No.4 were also sought for. Serial No.5 was the pension papers of Dr. Leena George having absolutely no correlation with the consideration of the approval of the appointment of the Principal. Serial No.6 was the Equivalency certificate of Ph. D degree of Anna University of the 5 th respondent. That apart, it is submitted that the University had approved the promotions granted to the 5 th respondent to the cadre of Senior Grade Lecturer and Associate Professor during 2001 and 2009, and all the said documents had been scrutinized prior to the grant of approval. In sum and substance, the contention is that the selection of the 5 th respondent as Rank No.1 was in accordance with law. According to the 4th respondent, eventhough various letters were addressed to the respondents to approve the appointment of the 5th respondent, no action was initiated, which is causing serious prejudice to the college. The 5 th respondent has also filed a detailed counter affidavit almost in similar lines.
Assistant Associate Professor/equivalen Professor/equivalen Professor/equivalen t cadres (stage5) t cadres (stage1) t cadres (Stage 4) Minimum API Minimum Consolidated API Consolidated API Scores Qualification as score requirement Score requirement stipulated in these of 300 points from of 400 points from regulations Category III of APIs category III of APIs Selection a) Academic a) Academic a) Academic Committee Record and Background Background criteria/weightages Research (20%) (20%) (Total Performance b) Research b) Research Weightages=100) (50%) performance Performance
b) Assessment based on based on of Domain API score API score Knowledge and quality and quality and of of Teaching publications publications Skills (30%) (40%) (40%)
clear from Ext.R4(L) that in the column for 'Research Performance based on API Score and quality of publications', the petitioners are granted 44.16 and 37.86 respectively; whereas, the 5th respondent could score only 32.70 marks. However, in the domain knowledge and interview, while the petitioners were given 11/9 and 12/10, the 5 th respondent was given 16/18 and thus, altogether the petitioners were granted 179.6 and 221.2 respectively in the API Scores; whereas the 5th respondent was given 237.4. But, fact remains as per the API score, there should be a minimum score of 400 for a candidate and therefore, the scoring done is also violative of Appendix III of the UGC Regulations. Going by the credentials produced by the petitioners, it is explicit that the marks are not awarded in terms of the UGC Regulations and Appendix III and therefore, not correct. Learned Standing Counsel for the UGC and the University have submitted that, the UGC Regulations were adopted by the University and the stipulations entertained therein are binding on the University and the Colleges affiliated to it, and the College having not followed it, the appointment of the 5th respondent is not in accordance with law. Eventhough learned Senior Counsel for the 5th respondent has a case that having participated in a selection process without any objections, the petitioners are not entitled to turn around and challenge the process.