Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The facts of the case briefly stated are thus :

An advertisement for the post of Professor in Marathi for the Open category was published by respondent No.1 -

University on 30/11/2011. The petitioner being duly qualified for the said post, applied along with necessary documents.

Along with the application form the copy of Part B of the Academic Performance Indicator ('API' for short) and Category wpl 3633-18.doc III showing that the petitioner is having necessary API score more than required score was also enclosed. The required API score to be eligible for interview is 400. The petitioner's API score is 683.5.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains to point out that the API score of the respondent No.3 calculated by the Committee was only 316.5. Based on this score the respondent No.3 was not even eligible to be considered to be called for interview as the minimum API score required to be eligible for an interview call is 400. She submits that as a result of arbitrary increase of 150 marks to the API score of the respondent No.3, her score stands at 694 in Category III. The petitioner had API score of 683.5 in Category III. According to her, it is thus obvious that the increase of 150 marks to the API score of the respondent No.3 in contravention of the UGC wpl 3633-18.doc guidelines, is with a view to ensure that it is only the respondent No.3 who is selected to the post.

15. Learned counsel submitted that the Committee which comprised of experts in the field of education recommended that out of 14, 10 publications are reputed journals/magazines which may be considered and if considered, 150 marks can be added to the API score calculated by the Committee. Learned counsel submitted that as per report of the Committee, respondent No.3 possesses the API score of 316.5 and regarding the remaining API score of 150, the Expert Committee opined that even though the API score of 150 is claimed through the journals/magazines which do not have ISBN/ISSN numbers, they are reputed journals / magazines and hence may be considered. Thus respondent No.3 had necessary API score at the time of her appointment as a Professor of wpl 3633-18.doc Marathi in University Department. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.3 was found eligible and more meritorious and therefore appointed by Selection Committee.

wpl 3633-18.doc

25. From the record it is evident that initially the Selection Committee which met on 27/4/2013 comprised of experts in the field of Education. One of the member Dr. Ramdas G. Atram, Director of Higher Education, had also endorsed the unanimous decision of the Selection Committee to recommend the name of respondent No.3 subject to verification of API score in Category III. Even during the course of hearing of the Appeal, two members Expert Committee which went into the issue of API scores of the petitioner, comprised of Dr. Nagnath Kottapalle, Ex-Vice Chancellor, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and Prof. P.V. Pradhan, former Registrar of the Mumbai University, to check and verify the necessary 400 API score of the petitioner. We find that the issue has been examined even by the Board of Deans. The subsequent clarification that the Board of Deans was not competent to decide the issue of API scores of a candidate is hardly of any consequence as the two member Expert Committee has recommended the API score of 150 for the journals / magazines in respect of respondent No.3. Thus it is wpl 3633-18.doc clearly a matter of record that the respondent No.3 possesses the API score of 316.5. Regarding remaining 150 points the Expert Committee has opined that even though the API score of 150 is claimed through the journals/ magazines which do not have ISBN/ISSN number, they are reputed journals / magazines and hence may be considered. The record further indicates that even the Vice Chancellor of the University of Mumbai was in agreement with this opinion of the Expert Committee. The guidelines issued by the UGC on various aspects of University education are for the purpose of maintenance of minimum standards of quality education. The explanation mentioned under Category III for research and academic contribution providing for maximum points for the publication, mentions that based on the teacher's self-assessment, API scores are proposed for research and academic contributions. The minimum API score required by teachers from this category is different for different levels of promotion and between university and colleges. It is further provided that the self assessment score will be based on verifiable criteria and will be finalized by the wpl 3633-18.doc screening / selection committee. Even in the Notes below Category III - Research and Academic Contributions, more particularly Note-1 provides that it is incumbent on the Coordination Committee proposed in these Regulations and the Universities to prepare and publicize within six months subject- wise lists of journals, periodicals and publications under categories IIIA and B. It further mentions that till such time, screening/selection committees will assess and verify the categorization and scores of publications.