Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Elaborating the first point, Sri K.N.Nitish, learned Counsel contended that as per the qualification prescribed for the post of 'Kannada Professor', qualification No.4 clearly stipulates that minimum criteria stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator [API] is based on performance and based on appraisal system developed by UGC in its Regulations. According to him, as could be seen from Table-1(A), Column No.5 of UGC Notification produced by respondent Nos.1 and 2 at Annexure-R1 to the statement of objections, the minimum API score to be secured by a person to be qualified for the post of Professor is 400 points. Respondent No.3 while filing his application to the post of Professor in Kannada has claimed API score to be at 626. Likewise, when he filed the application for the post of Principal, Mangalore University which at Annexure-R to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 24.11.2014, he has declared that his API score is 626. However, respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not call for interview to the post of Principal on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the required 400 API score points. The said assessment is made by none other than respondent Nos.1 and 2 University. Therefore, the very same respondents have given 509 API score. It is impossible and impermissible too. Therefore, the computation of API score made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 at Annexure-R has not been questioned by respondent No.3. Therefore, respondent No.3 is not eligible to the post of Professor at all.

However, the marks allotted to the petitioner is only 66.2 and respondent No.3 is 71.8. Though, the petitioner stated in his application, while applying to the post of Kannada Professor, self assessment at 1294.5 and further contended that the marks to be awarded to API score is at

400. 30 marks is to be awarded for API score of 400 points and 1 for every 15 additional API score. According to him, he is entitled to be awarded 40 marks, but erroneously 38 points had been given to him for the post of Doctoral Study Research with evidence of research publication, patent, book for one paper being published. 5 marks is awardable. If respondent Nos.1 and 2 awarded 40 instead of 38, and 5 marks extra, the petitioner should have been given 7 marks more and the total marks awardable to the petitioner would be 73.2 whereas the score allowed to respondent No.3 is 71.8. Therefore, the petitioner is better candidate than respondent No.3 and the very appointment of respondent No.3 is illegal and cannot be sustained contrary to the notification issued. He further contended that the very selection made by the University appointing respondent No.3 is not in accordance with the notification and in accordance with law. Therefore, he seeks to allow the writ petition.

16. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for 3rd respondent relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, AIR 2008 SC 5, at para 18 and sought to dismiss the petition.

17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that respondent Nos.1 and 2 issued notification dated 10.05.2013 inviting applications in the prescribed form from qualified candidates of Indian nationality to 19 posts of Professors, and 15 posts of Associate Professors. Out of 19 posts of Professors to various subjects, It is also not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent No.3 applied for the post of Professor in Kannada. According to the petitioner, in his application at Annexure-H, he has stated that from Category I/II/III of Table I/IV/VII in Appendix III of UGC Regulations, 2010, he scored consolidated API score of 1294.5. According to respondent No.3, he filed application claiming his consolidated API score at 626. The University, considering the applications under the UGC Regulations and Statutes on the basis of various parameters which are set out in the petition as under:

From the above it is clear that the petitioner has obtained total API Score of 520.5, 50 points based on API Score, 16.2 interview marks, in all, 66.2 marks. The respondent No.3 though secured 509 API Score and 49.2 points, his interview marks are 22.6, in all 71.8 marks.

Therefore the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to 40 marks and 5 marks as contended supra cannot be accepted.

23. The material on record clearly depicts that out of 19 posts, only one post was reserved for Professor in Kannada. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent got higher marks than the petitioner and 3rd respondent came to be appointed by the respondents vide Official memorandum dated 02.12.2013. The same was approved by the Syndicate on 30.11.2013. The petitioner though participated in the proceedings, did not challenge the selection criteria fixed by the University. Having accepted the selection criteria and having participated and being unsuccessful, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the appointment of respondent No.3 which is impermissible.