Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. Per contra, Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent in W.A. No. 1594 of 2019 would contend that the circular dated 20.04.2018 issued by the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board suffers from infirmities and it is in violation of UGC Regulations, 2010 and the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976. As per Rule 11 (4) (ii) of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulations) Rules, 1976, if an educational agency is established and administers http://www.judis.nic.in  wa 1584 of 2019 more than one college, such colleges under the control of the educational agency shall be treated as one unit. While so, the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board ought to have issued a single notification for selection to the post of Principal instead of issuing four separate notifications. Therefore, the issuance of four separate notifications itself is in violation of Rule 11 (4) and on that ground, the entire selection process is vitiated. As per clause 4.2.0 (iv) of the UGC Regulations, 2010, a person who aspires to get appointed to the post of Principal must possess the minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) set out in UGC Regulation in Tables I to IX of Appendix III. In the present case, the said regulation has been totally by passed and the selection has been done systematically with malafide intention of selecting a person of their choice against the regulations and merits. The learned Senior counsel invited our attention to the marks awarded to the participants in the selection process and contended that at the bottom of the mark statement relating to Dr. N. Shettu, it has been written in manuscript "Dr. N. Shettu is appointed as Principal of Pachaiyappa's College, Chennai and it is signed only by the Chairperson and no other member of the selection committee has signed the consolidated mark statement. By inviting the attention of this Court to the marks awarded to the participants in the selection process and various other deficiencies, the learned Senior counsel would contend that the assessment of merit and ability have not been made in the selection committee in a manner known to law and it is evident that Principals for each college has been fixed and accordingly documents are prepared. There has been no wait listed candidate for any of these colleges. Therefore, according to the learned Senior counsel, the entire selection is marred http://www.judis.nic.in  wa 1584 of 2019 by fraud and collusion. There is absolute arbitrariness writ large on the face of the records emanated out of the oral interview and the tabulation of marks awarded thereof. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel would submit that the learned single Judge is right in declaring the entire selection as void and he prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

iv. A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), set out in this Regulation in Tables I to IX of Appendix III."

32. From the above, it is clear that Clause 4.2.0 (iv) of UGC Regulations http://www.judis.nic.in  wa 1584 of 2019 clearly stipulate that "a minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) set out in this Regulation in Table I to IX of Appendix III is followed. As per Appendix-III, Table - 1, the proposed scores for academic performance indicators (APIs) is to be indicated, which is relevant for recruitment and career advancement scheme (CAS) promotions of University/College Teachers. This appendix clearly stipulates that API is relevant to evaluate the teacher's self-assessment. It is also relevant to evaluate the teaching related activity, domain knowledge, participation in examination and evaluation and contribution to innovative teaching, new courses etc., As per Appendix-III, Table -I, the minimum API score required to be possessed by teachers is 75. Further, the self-assessment score should be based on objectively verifiable criteria wherever possible and will be finalised by the screening/selection committee. Further, as per Clause 6.3.2 of the UGC Regulations, a candidate who does not fulfil the minimum score requirement under the API scoring System proposed in the Regulations as per Tables II (a and b) of Appendix III or those who obtain less than 50% in the expert assessment of the selection process will have to be re-assessed only after a minimum period of one year. Thus, evaluation of API is one of the significant factors required to be examined during the process of selection. In the present case, admittedly, in the notification dated 20.04.2018, there is no reference made to clause 4.2.0. (iv) relating to API and it is omitted to be indicated therein even though Clause 4.2.0 (i) to (iii) have been verbatim referred to in the notification dated 20.04.2018. This is pointed out as one of the violations of the UGC regulations by the writ petitioners. Even though it was contended that in the Circular dated 20.04.2018 it was stated http://www.judis.nic.in  wa 1584 of 2019 that the selection will be based on UGC norms, it is not enough. Thus, the requirement to possess API has not been mentioned in the circular dated 20.04.2018 which is in violation of the UGC Regulations. On this ground alone, the selection process has to be declared invalid. It is settled proposition of law that when the Statute prescribes an act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done only in that manner and not in any other manner. Further, it is brought to our notice that during the selection process, the applicants have submitted their applications along with enclosures containing 200 to 300 pages, but it is really surprising as to whether those enclosures of the candidates have been scrutinised and evaluated within a short span of time. Therefore, we are of the view that even the interview conducted by the selection committee lacks transparency. Further, the Interim Administrator, in his counter affidavit has stated that the members in the selection committee have signed blank mark sheets to enable the authorities to award the marks at their whims and fancy to select a particular candidate of their choice. It was also stated that erratic marks were awarded during interview which had tilted the selection or choice of candidate, as has been pre-determined. In such circumstances, we are in agreement with the findings rendered by the learned single Judge that the selection process is marred by non-adherence to statutory procedures and consequently, we hold that the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board did not adhere to the norms prescribed in the UGC Regulations, 2010 in the process of selection and appointment to the post of Principal to the constitutent colleges within it's administrative fold.