Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The petitioner would submit that his name was not included in the list, however his junior most Associate Professor has been considered. The petitioner therefore once again approached this court by filing W.P.No.30908 of 2014 to consider the application dated 29.01.2014 and promote the petitioner to the next level i.e., stage 5. The petitioner would submit that he had secured copy of the minutes of the Staff Selection Committee Meeting held on 31.10.2014, API Score Sheet and the selection committee Assessment Chart. On https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis scrutinising these documents, he found that API scores were deliberately not awarded. The petitioner would submit that on the verification of API score sheet, he found that for Categories I and II the score awarded was less than what he was actually entitled to. That apart, his juniors had been promoted. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the above Writ Petition stating that the guidelines framed by the UGC had not been followed.

9. A counter has been filed by the 1st respondent denying the allegations of the petitioner. The counter would read that the petitioner had only secured 83 points for category III. The Screening- cum-Evaluation committee had scrutinised the documents produced by the petitioner and held that he was not eligible. They had also submitted that even in the interview the petitioner had performed very poorly. He had not even secured 50/100 in the interview, where he has only secured 42/100. They would submit that the selection committee had not rejected the petitioner's candidature only on the ground of API score but also taking his performance in the interview. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Therefore, no exception can be taken to the above.

10. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records.

11. Though the petitioner had been contending that his candidature had been rejected on the ground of his having poor API score which was the only criteria that had to be taken into consideration, however a perusal of the records would show that not only should the API scores be considered but also the scores in the interview.

12. A perusal of the Minutes of Staff (Teaching) Selection committee dated 31.10.2014 would clearly show that the petitioner was not selected on account of “Not meeting the minimum API score in category III and interview marks is less than 50”. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced since the parameters for promotion was not only the API score but also https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the performance at the interview and the marks awarded therein. The petitioner having failed to reach the bench mark cannot seek redressal from the Court by asking the Court to sit as a Selection Committee.