Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10.It was upon receipt of the letter dated October 19, 2010 that the said notice inviting applications was issued by the University with specification of qualifications that the aspiring candidates must possess.

11.A preliminary screening of the 4 (four) applications that were received turned to be fatal for 1 (one) candidate, who was not considered eligible. It appears that bio-data of the (3) three prima facie eligible candidates was prepared by the University, for placing it in a meeting of the Standing Committee to be held on March 8, 2011. Such bio-data revealed that Asitabha secured API score of 525.5 and was declared eligible for the post of librarian, whereas Mriganka came a distant third with API score of 80. Even though minimum API score of 400 was required to qualify, Mriganka was not declared ineligible. The other candidate, Kanchan Kamila, figured at the second position with API Score of 455. Despite the same, the Standing Committee comprising of, inter alia, the Vice Chancellor of the university made the following recommendation:

2) Mriganka was ineligible to apply for the post of librarian since he lacked the requisite experience; and

3) In terms of the UGC 2010 Regulations, an aspiring candidate is required to obtain minimum API score of 400 in research and academic contribution and Mriganka was declared eligible despite having an API score of 80;"

15. On behalf of the University, the following contentions were raised:

1) Since provisions of the UGC 2010 Regulations on the one hand and the provisions contained in the University Act and the Statutes on the other were not uniform, the University chose to follow the provisions of the latter;

2) Since Mriganka was working as a librarian of the NBU prior to his appointment in the University, the Standing Committee did not insist upon the API score laid down in the said notice;

3) Recruitment rules had been introduced on June 29, 2011, which did not also insist upon the API score and as such it was not necessary for the Standing Committee to ascertain whether Mriganka had the requisite API score; and

21. True it is, the said notice contained a clause relating to relaxation which we have noted above but such relaxation could be granted if so recommended by the Standing Committee and that too on specific grounds. We have not been shown and it does not appear from the materials on record that the Standing Committee, on specific grounds, had recommended relaxation of the API score qua Mriganka. The learned Judge did not discuss the point of power of relaxation that was available to the University; however, since the API score had not been relaxed and in the absence of any recommendation made by the Standing Committee on specific grounds, we have no hesitation in concluding that Mriganka was not even eligible to be considered for appointment on the post of librarian.