Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

submits that the University Grants Commission's [UGC] regulations which have come into force from 30-06-2010 are accepted and acted upon by the State of Maharashtra from 15-02-2011 and as such are determinative. The UGC regulations do not give any concession to respondent no.3 already working as a Principal in an aided college affiliated to the Nagpur University and as such his selection in terms of the advertisement dated 27-06-2013 needs to be viewed as fresh selection and if so viewed, he has to show that his Academic Performance Indicators [API] score is minimum 400 points and without that he cannot participate in the selection process. The support is being taken from Clause 4.2.0 (iv) and Appendix-III Table-II(c) with UGC Regulations for this purpose. The papers showing 440 as API score submitted by respondent no.3 are also objected to on the ground that when the points for training course etc. can at the most be 30, the respondent no.3 has taken to 215 marks. It is submitted that the same error of taking more score on other counts can also be demonstrated but then as for training, 185 points have been taken in excess, if those points are subtracted from 440 the API score of respondent no.3 drops down to 255, and hence he ceases to be eligible and cannot participate in the process.

11] Lastly on API score, the learned Advocate submits that the UGC regulations do not contain any provision disqualifying or removing a person validly selected as a Principal and working on 30-06-2010 or 15-02-2011. He submits that a person working as a Principal of a college therefore can definitely changes college and become Principal of some other college. Hence, the requirement of having minimum API score of 400 is not attracted at all.

12] Without prejudice, he adds that the API score of 440 claimed by respondent no.3 is accepted by the Selection Committee and there is no error in it. He submits that the same scale needs to be used even for 7 091117 wp 2016.14 Judg..odt judging the API score for the petitioner and as such there cannot be any discrimination between respondent no.3 and the petitioner. If it is claimed, on any count, including under the head "training", that the respondent no.3 has taken excessive score, then the petitioner also has taken same scores.

15] After hearing the learned respective Advocates, we find that the API scores of the candidates need to be evaluated by the Selection Committee. Hence, whether anybody has taken wrong scores or has played any mischief, is the issue in domain of such Committee.

8 091117 wp 2016.14 Judg..odt 16] However, vide order dated 12-10-2017, we have already made some observations about the Condition no.3 in the advertisement. We have recorded that an opportunity was given to the petitioner to file fresh petition as said ground was going to the very root of the advertisement. The learned Advocate for the petitioner in absence of instructions agreed to proceed with hearing and the writ petition and permitted the learned Advocate for respondent no.3 i.e. learned Advocate Shri Kulkarni to argue on merits. Thus, the validity of Clause no.3 or otherwise of the advertisement cannot be looked into in this proceeding. 17] It is apparent that if Clause no.3 in the advertisement is to be set aside, the petitioner ought to have approached the Court immediately. He did participate in the selection process, acquiesced in it and hence on 12-10-2017, he was given necessary opportunity. 18] In any case, in the present matter, no express provision in UGC regulations unseating a Principal like respondent no.3 has been pointed out. The respondent no.3, therefore, can continue to function as a Principal of a college affiliated to the Nagpur University. It does not mean that he can continue as a Principal of a college in which he is placed on the 9 091117 wp 2016.14 Judg..odt date of coming into force of UGC regulations and if he changes the college he becomes disqualified. Learned Advocate Shri Khapre, however, submitted that the selection as a Principal of other college is fresh recruitment and therefore the norms prevailing on the eve of such fresh recruitment must be fulfilled. For reasons already mentioned supra, we find it difficult to look into the validity of Clause no.3 or then this contention in the present matter.