Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Regulations require weightage to be given to the Academic Performance Indicator (API) Scores of the candidate. According to the first respondent, the selection in the present case was conducted without giving weightage to the API Scores.

3. The University filed Counter Affidavit disputing the contentions. According to the University, the appellant had been appointed pursuant to the recommendations made by the duly constituted Selection Committee. According to the University, the UGC Regulations had not been adopted by it and in the absence of such Regulations being applicable, the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 and Ext.P7 norms would continue to be applicable. It was also contended that the calculation of API Scores under Ext.P3, on which reliance was placed by the first respondent, was wrong. The Government also supported the stand of the University.  W.A.270/2017.

4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the respective contentions, has allowed the writ petition, holding that the UGC Regulations were applicable and that, since the selection was not made in accordance with the said Regulations, the same was bad. Therefore, the university has been directed to rework the selection in accordance with law. The appellant is aggrieved by the said judgment.

5. According to the learned Senior Counsel Shri. Jaju Babu, who appears for the appellant, the post of Lecturer, re-designated as Assistant Professor, does not insist on the API Score as a qualification that has to be satisfied. Our attention is drawn to the qualifications stipulated by Ext.P3 Regulations for the post of Professor, Principal and Associate Professor to point out that possession of a minimum API Score has been stipulated as a necessary qualification in the case of several posts. In sharp contrast, according to the learned Senior Counsel, no such minimum API Score is insisted upon  W.A.270/2017.

therefore vitiated and has been rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. We have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

7. We have considered the contentions advanced before us anxiously. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent, Ext.P1 Notification is dated 13.6.2011. In Ext.P2, which is admittedly the copy of the application submitted by the first respondent, the column that is numbered as Serial No. 14 seeks an answer as to whether the candidate meets the eligibility criteria 'as per UGC Regulations, 2010 for the applied post'. It has been further made clear in the bracket that UGC Regulations are available on both UGC web site and Kerala University web site. At column that is numbered as Serial No. 15, the application requires the candidate to specify the total API Score. In the said column, it has been set out in italics 'For calculation of the API Score, refer Appendix III of UGC Regulations 2010'.  W.A.270/2017.

Accordingly, the candidate has in Ext.P2 specified the API Score. It is therefore clear from a perusal of Ext.P2 that the University had required the candidates to supply the API Scores calculated in accordance with the provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2010. It cannot be presumed that the scores were required to be supplied as an empty formality. Going by Ext.P2, it has to be presumed that all the candidates would have supplied their API Scores as required in the application. We have been taken through the UGC Regulations, 2010 that stipulate that weightage be given for each candidate based on the API Score also. Admittedly no such weightage has been given in the present case. Having stipulated in the application form that the candidates should supply the API Scores, it is not open to the University to contend that the said Regulations are not applicable to the University or to the selection in the present case. Apart from the above, the Full Bench of this Court in the decision in Radhakrishna Pillai D. v. Travancore  W.A.270/2017.