Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: API score in Ram Pratap Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 22 January, 2020Matching Fragments
8) alongwith instructions issued by Haryana Government for recording confidential reports (Annexure P-9). Hence, the present writ petition has been filed for quashing letter dated 04.01.2017 (Annexure P-6) and letter dated 11.01.2017 (Annexure P-7).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that instructions (Annexure P-3) lay down the procedure how the API score is to be evaluated. It is nowhere mentioned in these instructions that while granting pay band IV on the basis of API score, the candidate will also be interviewd and remarks would be recorded in his ACR. The ACR is to be recorded by Reporting Officer, who in the case of the petitioner would be Principal and the Accepting Authority would be Director General Higher Education. Further, the instructions regarding recording of ACR have been annexed as Annexure P-9 in which it has been clearly mentioned that the ACR has to be recorded only by the reporting officer and it has also been mentioned that a minimum period of three months should have been seen by the reporting officer before recording the ACR of his subordinate and the ACR cannot be recorded on the basis of the meeting of the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee is not competent to record the ACR of the petitioner and the object of the meeting of the Screening Committee was only with regard to pay band IV. The Screening Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction by taking decision that employees who had secured less than 10 3 of 5 CWP-7345-2017(O&M) -4- marks in the interview/domain knowledge, remarks has to be recorded in the ACR as 'Domain Knowledge Poor'.
It is not the case of the respondents that after making assessment of domain knowledge after 2016, this procedure was followed for granting 4th pay band on the basis of API score. Since it was the first time the Screening Committee was constituted after the guidelines by UGC (Annexure P-3), the Screening Committee proceeded to interview the Lecturers and assessed their domain knowledge and then reported in the ACR that they have domain knowledge. This procedure was never contemplated in the guidelines issued by UGC (Annexure P-3) and as per the State after 2016, this procedure for assessing the domain knowledge by way of interview has never been followed. The petitioner had sought information under the RTI (Annexure P-10) and the question No. 2 is as under:-