Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. The contention, however, taken by the present Standing Counsel now arguing for the respondent-University is that  810/2016.

Exhibit P15, University Grants Commission Regulations, did not stipulate any minimum Academic Performance Indicator (API) score and 'a', 'b' and 'c' in Column 2 as noticed by this Court were marks awarded at the interview and not for shortlisting. It is submitted that the shortlisting is done on the basis of the academic qualification, age, research publication and academic contributions; which are the criteria for shortlisting as per Exhibit P11. Further marks are granted for 'a', 'b' and 'c' at the interview, is the specific contention taken. The University submits that the UGC Regulation on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 was amended in the year 2013 and API scores are no longer significant for the expert assessment of candidates in Direct Recruitment and are employed only in the initial screening. It is also urged that a similar issue was considered by the Allahabad High Court in the decision placed as Annexure D.

has not appeared in the writ petition and who was not heard. Only since Faisal Ahmed Khan had not challenged the selection at all, this Court had directed the petitioner in the writ petition to be continued in the post to which the 9th respondent was appointed.

18. Annexure D was also a case in which the Selection to the faculty of the University was challenged as vitiated by nepotism. Therein the screening was at two stages called the Faculty Affairs Committee-Level-1 & Level-II (FAC-I & II). The contention taken was that the candidates who stood first at both the initial screening stages were avoided at the interview where an arbitrary exercise was made to choose candidates of their choice. The contention of the University that the API scores were applied only at the initial stage and would have no bearing on the expert assessment of candidates was accepted by the Court. The Court dismissed the plea of arbitrariness and nepotism on the well accepted proposition of; Courts desisting from interfering with an assessment made by a expert committee; substituting its subjective opinion over that of the experts. The proposition is too well heeled, for this Court to differ therefrom. But it is seen from the text, that the Minutes of the Selection Committee was  810/2016.