Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts summarised are that the Petitioner joined the Sikkim University, Gangtok, as an Associate Professor in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication in 9.3.2012 and continued in service as an Associate Professor, Department of History from 1.7.2013, as per Orders of the Respondents No. 1 and

2. On completion of three years as an Associate Professor in Stage 4 on 30.6.2016, he accrued the requisite credit points as per the Academic Performance Indicator (for short „API‟) based Performance Based Appraisal System (for short „PBAS‟) methodology, provided in Dr. Vaidyanathan Krishna Ananth v. Sikkim University & Others Table I-III, Appendix-IV of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and was thus eligible for appointment and designation as Professor from 1.7.2016. Consequently, he submitted his Application in terms of the 3rd amendment to the UGC Regulations, 2010, on 17.6.2016, in the prescribed format, for promotion under CAS from Stage 4 to Stage 5, along with evidence of API score. In response, he received a letter from the Respondents No. 1 and 2, dated 27.2.2017 requesting him to resubmit the application as the earlier Application could not be located. In compliance thereof, he resubmitted his Application on 1.3.2017 along with all necessary documents, duly received by the Respondents No.1 and 2. Pursuant thereto, he received an e-mail on 18.5.2017 from the Internal Quality Assurance Cell (for short „IQAC‟) of the University, requesting submission of his application as per the format of UGC Regulations 4th Amendment and that his API Application would be computed accordingly. The Petitioner on 19.5.2017 responded that the request was fallacious as his date of eligibility (1.7.2016) preceded the enforcement of the 4th amendment (effective from 11.7.2016), apart from remonstrating that the e-mail was not from the appropriate authority which ought to be the Expert Committee. On 10.7.2017, an e-mail was received by him from the Respondent No.1 stating that he had qualified on all other points/requirements but required him to submit proof of Ph.D. awarded under his supervision to enable completion of interviews by early August, 2017. The Petitioner protested this as there was no stipulation in the UGC Regulations, 2010 of such a requirement and reminded the Respondent No.1 of the position taken by them in this regard in Dr. Vaidyanathan Krishna Ananth v. Sikkim University & Others another matter vide a communication (Annexure P-13) sent to the Central Bureau of Investigation in April/May 2016, stating inter alia, that according to the UGC Regulations, 2010, the experience of guiding research at doctoral level is not required even for the post of Professor under CAS, leave alone for the post of Associate Professor, hence, arbitrary inclusion of a new criterion is improper. On 17.7.2017, he followed this up with another representation to the Respondent No.1 reiterating that the UGC Regulations of 2010 do not insist on a Ph.D. awarded under supervision of the person seeking promotion under CAS. Meanwhile, he learnt that meetings of various Selection Committees were held at New Delhi, from 31.7.2017, and in the week following thereto applications submitted much after the Petitioner‟s Application, in some other departments, were considered by the Selection Committee, duly constituted for promotion under CAS, while his case was excluded, thereby violating the provisions of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution. That, due to non-consideration of his case for more than eighteen months, he is deprived of appointments to various statutory bodies, membership to which are based on ex-cadre seniority. That, insertion of the additional qualification by the Respondents No.1 and 2 is arbitrary and mala fide, violating the Petitioner‟s rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, hence the aforesaid prayers.

1.2 ......................................
2. ..........................................
3. The clause 6.0.2 of the Principal Regulations shall stand amended and be substituted by the following clause:-
"6.0.2 The Universities shall adopt these Regulations for selection committees and selection procedures through their respective statutory bodies incorporating the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) at the institutional level for University Departments and their Constituent colleges/affiliated colleges (Government / Government aided / Autonomous/Private colleges) to be followed transparently in all the selection processes. An indicative PBAS template proforma for direct recruitment and for Career Advancement Schemes (CAS) based on API based PBAS is annexed in Appendix III. The Universities may adopt the template proforma or may devise their own self-

22. The above discussions would necessarily take us to the next question flagged. The criteria enumerated in Clause 6.4.8 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 for promotion from Stage 4 to Stage 5, reads as follows;

"6.4.8. Associate Professor completing three years of service in stage 4 and possessing a Ph.D. Degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor and be placed in the next higher grade (stage 5), subject to (a) satisfying the required credit points as per API based PBAS methodology provided in Table I-III of Appendix IV stipulated in these Regulations, and (b) an assessment by a duly constituted selection committee as suggested for the direct recruitment of Professor.

Dr. Vaidyanathan Krishna Ananth v. Sikkim University & Others

26. It would be apposite to state that the 4th amendment of the UGC Regulations, 2010 was enforced from 11.7.2016. From the facts discussed hereinabove, it is clear that the Petitioner is eligible to be considered for appointment and designation as Professor from 1.7.2016 having accrued the requisite credit points as per the API based PBAS methodology of the UGC Regulations. The request of the Respondents No.1 and 2 to the Petitioner requiring him to submit his Application under the 4th amendment is fallacious since it is not for the Respondents No.1 and 2 to dictate terms to the Petitioner, when specific criteria has been laid down by the UGC Regulations and he was eligible before the 4th amendment came into force on 11th July, 2016. This is reinforced by the Public Notice of the UGC dated 21st November, 2014 already extracted and which for brevity is not being reproduced. The alleged good faith extended by the Respondents No.1 and 2, while requiring him to submit his application under the 4th amendment finds no place in the legal scheme of things. Needless to add that no rule can be applied retrospectively unless it is specified therein for special consideration. In the instant matter no such specification has been laid down. It was clarified by the Respondents No.1 and 2 that no Forms have been prepared as per the 3rd amendment, be that as it may, this should not debar the Petitioner from applying as per the Regulations applicable to him and not as per the choice and directions of the Respondents No.1 and 2. The argument advanced by the Respondents No.1 and 2 that the Form provided by them for applying for promotion under CAS, suffices as proof of the additional criterion, is at best a feeble argument befitting no consideration or Dr. Vaidyanathan Krishna Ananth v. Sikkim University & Others discussion. At this juncture, it is worth noticing that the Circular dated 7.3.2017 (Annexure P-16) inviting applications for promotion under CAS, is silent about the additional norm. Perhaps it would be fair to assume that the criterion was meant to be applicable only to the Petitioner.