Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: API score in Dr.Thara K. Simon vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 8 April, 2021Matching Fragments
15. The competent authority in the University, who is vested with powers for approval of appointment shall consider such objections, vis-a-vis the report of the Expert Committee, on the basis of the UGC Regulations-4th amendment, which came into effect as on 11th July, 2016, and which provides the guidelines (parameters) for appraisal of the API score. A decision in this regard shall be taken after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. Needless to observe that, if the competent authority arrives at a conclusion that the appellant is lacking the requisite API score of 400, as on the date on which she was appointed as Principal of the College, the authority will be entitled to refuse approval of the appointment. On the other hand, if it is found that the appellant satisfies the requisite score, the appointment should be approved.
referred to as the '2016 Regulations'] produced as Ext.P13 in the writ petition. In particular, it was pointed out that the computation of the scores under Categories II and III in Appendix III : Table I was flawed. It was further pointed out that while the appellant had claimed a cumulative score of 1398.8 [323.8 + 1075] under Categories II and III (erroneously shown as 1120 [45 + 1075] in Ext.P5), the score accepted by the University, as borne out from Exts.P10 and P14 was only 273 [45 + 228]. The contention therefore was that if the Syndicate of the University had correctly computed the API score as contemplated under the 2016 Regulations, the appellant would have obtained an API score of more than 400, which was the requirement for appointment as Principal.
6. Before us, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that while the learned Single Judge erred in not examining the contentions with regard to the API scores awarded under Category III, the findings of the learned Single Judge as regards the API scores awarded under Category II are erroneous and contrary to the 2016 W.A.No.133/2021 :: 8 ::
Regulations. It is reiterated that the computation of the API score under Category II had to be arrived at by computing the actual API score obtained by the appellant during each year in the assessment period, and adding the scores so obtained to obtain the total score. The Syndicate of the University, on the other hand, found that the maximum API score that could be claimed under Category II [a, b and c] was 15 each, and hence, the total score that could have been claimed under Category II was 45. On a perusal of Ext.P13 Regulations, we are of the view that the stand taken by the University is correct. Ext.P13 Notification unambiguously prescribes a maximum API score of 15 under each sub heading while indicating that the computation of the actual score had to be arrived at by reckoning the number of hours actually spent in each academic year falling within the assessment period, and dividing the resultant number by 10. In other words, assuming that a person has actually spent 20 hours in an academic year, over 10 academic years that fell within the assessment period, then the actual score of that person would be /10 = 20. The maximum API score that could be claimed, however, could not be more than 15. The use of the phrase "maximum API score"
clearly indicates that, irrespective of the actual score W.A.No.133/2021 :: 9 ::
computed in the manner indicated under the Regulations, the maximum API score that can be claimed under each sub heading, under Category II, is only 15. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the said finding of the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned before us.
7. As regards Category III, while we are aware of the inherent limitations that inform the exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, we cannot shut our eyes to glaring disparities that are noticed in the evaluation done by the University in the instant case. No doubt, if the evaluation was done in strict adherence to the UGC guidelines in vogue, we would not have deemed it necessary to second guess the decision of the University. The discipline required of us while exercising our jurisdiction mandates that we refrain from interfering with the decisions of experts in academic matters. In the instant case, however, we find that the applicable guidelines were ignored by the University, and extraneous criteria relied upon, to disallow the marks claimed by the appellant under Category III. The said aspect assumes greater significance when we find that this is the third round of litigation, pursuant to the remand of the W.A.No.133/2021 :: 10 ::