Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. According to the petitioners, the scrutiny committee was constituted after receipt of application and it made the assessment,contrary to the provisions in statute. The screening committee was constituted subsequent to the evaluation of the applications by the scrutiny committee, identifying the relevant masters degree and the list of eligible candidates. Further contention is that marks were awarded contrary to the provisions in the statute, according to which only 20% can be earmarked for interview and 80% is to be awarded for academic qualification etc. Therefore it is contended that the selection is made in violation of statute 2(c), 2(e) and 2(f). It is contended that when statute prescribes a particular procedure, that method cannot be varied at any cost. Referring to Ext. P14 and P20 notes of the Governing Council meeting held on 2.3.2015, it is contended that the API score sheet as well as constitution of the scrutiny committee and screening committee and selection committee were not as per the UGC Regulations.

30. The petitioners pointed out that as per the UGC Regulations, marks are to be allotted only for research papers published as full papers and it is specifically stated in the notification issued by the UGC on 13.06.2013, which is produced as Ext.P14, that "abstracts not to be included". But the petitioners pointed out that the Academic Council had awarded marks for abstract, and the same is given in the score sheet contrary to Ext.P14. Therefore a person who has published 100 abstracts therefore will get 50 marks in the score sheet. This is demonstrated by producing Ext.P14 notification dated 13.06.2013 of the UGC, published in the gazette of India extraordinary to show that the UGC minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education (second amendment) Regulations 2013, which provides for the revised selection procedure on the basis of the performance of the candidates on a scoring system proforma, based on the Academic Performance Indicators as provided therein. It provides for the marks for research papers published, but provides that abstracts should not be included. Ext.P15 is the score sheet for direct recruitment of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor prepared by the University. As per this score sheet, it is pointed out that marks are awarded for research projects for the abstracts of a research publication also, whereas it is specifically prohibited as per Ext.P15 amended Regulation of the UGC. Pointing out this, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Sudhakara Prasad submitted that the entire process of selection was vitiated and are liable to be set aside. Further it is pointed out that the documents produced along with the counter affidavit and the contentions in the counter affidavit do not tally. The respondent University in paragraph 15 of their counter affidavit says that after receipt of application, the 2nd respondent constituted a scrutiny committee consisting of 5 members and that this commitee, by abiding the approved score sheets for the selection of faculty in KUFOS, evaluated the applications and assigned scores in a total of 75 and subsequently the screening committee under the chairmanship of Vice Chancellor with subject experts, scrutinised the applications fulfilling the minimum qualifications, identifying the relevant masters degree and the list of eligible candidates and this expert body unanimously took a decision in respect of candidates who are eligible to be called for interview and it was thereafter that interview was held following all procedural formalities. At the same time, Ext.R2(g) states that the Vice Chancellor constituted a screening committee as per Chapter IX Section 2 comprising of Vice Chancellor as Chairman. Thereafter the Vice Chancellor constituted the selection committee as per UGC Regulations 2010 comprising of Vice Chancellor and 3 subject experts approved by the governing council. Ext.R2(g) further states that 50% of the marks is given for academic record and research performance, 30% for the assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skill, 20% for the interview performance; the API score sheet was provided as per UGC Regulations 2010 exercising the extent of flexibility admissible. Petitioners point out that the flexibility is only for the form and not for the substance are provided in the UGC Regulation and therefore by adopting different percentage of marks and API scores the selection was held contrary to the amended UGC Regulations of 2013 (Ext P15).