Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8.The Registrar of the respondent University, has filed a counter affidavit in this Writ Petition. The counter affidavit does not raise any serious objections with regard to the facts of the present case. The main ground that has been taken in the counter affidavit is to the effect that as per the UGC Regulations, the eligibility for promotion from Stage 3 to Stage 4 and the effective date of promotion, will depend upon the API score and the performance of the candidate before the http://www.judis.nic.in Selection Committee. The Selection Committee found the API score of the petitioner for the period 2013 to 2016 as inadequate and therefore, the petitioner was not granted promotion with effect from 08.11.2016. The Committee thereafter, called for additional information and found that the API score of the petitioner for the year 2016-2017, was sufficient and hence the Selection Committee had recommended the promotion of the petitioner effective from 08.11.2017 and accordingly, the petitioner was awarded promotion as Associate Professor (Stage 4) with effect from 08.11.2017. On this ground, the respondent University has sought for the dismissal of the present Writ Petition and it has been stated that the petitioner is eligible to apply for the next promotion only on 08.11.2020.

6.3.2. Candidates who do not fulfill the http://www.judis.nic.in minimum score requirement under the API Scoring System proposed in the Regulations as per Tables II (a and b) of Appendix III or those who obtain less than 50% in the expert assessment of the selection process will have to be re-assessed only after a minimum period of one year. The date of promotion shall be the date on which he/she has successfully got re-assessed.
6.3.12(c) : If the candidate does not succeed in the first assessment, but succeeds in the eventual assessment, his/her promotion will be deemed to be from the later date of successful assessment.

12. It is clear from the above Regulations that a candidate who does not fulfil the minimum score requirements under the API scoring system or those who obtain less than 50% in the expert assessment of the selection process, will be eligible to be again reassessed only after a minimum period of one year. In cases where the candidate does not succeed in the first assessment, but succeeds in the eventual assessment, his or her promotion will be deemed to be effective from the later date of successful assessment. According to the respondent University, the API score of the petitioner for the years http://www.judis.nic.in 2013-2016, was found to be inadequate in the first assessment and only in the eventual assessment, where his API score for the year 2016-2017 was found to be adequate, recommendation was made for his promotion as Associate Professor (Stage 4) with effect from 08.11.2017, which is the later date of successful assessment.

Category I Category II Category III Category II + III

14. This score was found to be inadequate. Therefore, the petitioner was not found to fulfil the minimum score requirement. The Committee also considered the API score of the petitioner for the fourth year i.e. 2016-2017 and found it to be adequate and therefore, in line with Clause 6.3.12(c) of the UGC Regulations, the promotion to the post of Associate Professor (Stage 4) was granted with effect from 08.11.2017, which is the later date of successful assessment.