Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: API score in Dr. P.Satheesh vs Tunjathu Ezhuthachan Malayalam ... on 26 November, 2019Matching Fragments
5. Thus, according to the petitioners, it is clear that clauses 4.4.1, 5.0.0, 5.0.1, 6.0.1, and 6.0.2 and Appendix-III Table II(c) shall be followed by the 1st respondent University in the matter of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. Accordingly, petitioners were called for interview by issuing Ext.P6 intimation. It was specifically stipulated in Ext.P6 that those candidates who are working in any establishment shall produce the No- Objection Certificate and records pertaining to Academic Performance Indicators, however, the stipulations contained in Ext.P6 intimation are contrary to the provisions of Minimum Qualification Regulations, 2010 in the matter of procedure to be followed at the time of selection as the same stipulates that API score need be produced only by those candidates who are working in any establishment currently.
24. Likewise, clause 6.2.0 stipulates that, the minimum norms of Selection Committees and Selection Procedures as well as API score requirements for the above cadres, either through direct recruitment or through Career Advancement Schemes Regulations, shall be similar. However, since teachers recruited directly can be from different backgrounds and institutions, Table II(c) of Appendix-III provides norms for direct recruitment of teachers to different cadres, while Tables II(a) and Table II(b) provide for CAS promotions of teachers in Universities and colleges respectively, which accommodate these differences.
Assistant Associate Professor/
Professor/ Professor/ equivalent
equivalent equivalent cadres(Stage 5)
cadres(Stage 1) cadres(Stage 4)
Minimum Minimum Consolidated Consolidated
API Scores Qualification API score API score
as stipulated requirement of requirement of
in these 300 points from 400 points from
regulations category III of category III of
APIs APIs
Selection a) Academic a) Academic e) Academic
Committee Record and Background Background
criteria/ Research (20%) (20%)
weightages Performance b) Research f) Research
(Total (50%) performance performance
Weightages b) Assessment based on API based on API
= 100) of Domain score and score and
Knowledge and quality of quality of
Teaching Skills publications publications
(30%) (40%). (40%).
c) Interview c) Assessment g) Assessment
performance of Domain of Domain
(20%) Knowledge and Knowledge and
Teaching Skills Teaching Skills
(20%). (20%)
d) Interview Interview
performance performance
(20%). (20%).
26. The contention advanced by the petitioners is that, the specifications contained under the Regulation 6.0.0 as well as the Appendix specified above are not followed by the interview board, which allegation, in my considered opinion, is not disputed at all either by the University or the party respondents convincingly and satisfactorily. It is also clearly stated that, without verifying API scores produced by the petitioners at the time of interview, they were returned to the petitioners. So also, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that, nowhere in the score sheet, a split-up figure in accordance with Appendix-III is provided, and only a total score is provided, which is against the Regulations, 2010. I find force in the said contention also, since the specific allegations so made by the petitioners in the writ petition are not denied either by the University or the party respondents.