Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant further contended that non-compliance of Rule 11 (4) or non-indication of API is not a ground for the learned single Judge to declare the entire selection process as null and void. Rule 11 (4) states that for the purpose of selection process, the colleges are to be treated as one unit. In other words, the application is to be kept open to all colleges and applications are considered in toto for the purpose of merit, ability and seniority. The selection process is open to all the eligible candidates from all the colleges and there is no restriction. The notification also specifically states that it is to be circulated to all colleges and all colleges will be treated as one unit. Further, in the notification, it is clearly stated that applications will be processed in accordance with the applicable UGC guidelines, meaning thereby, the requirements of UGC will be the basis of selection, which includes API scores as well. In any event, a valid selection committee has been constituted and the selection was also approved by the University of Madras as well as the Directorate of Collegiate Education. The learned single Judge, merely on suspicion without any material to substantiate such suspicion has declared that the selection is tainted by arbitrariness and is malafide. When such a conclusion has been arrived, the learned single Judge ought to have given an opportunity to the committee members to respond to those allegations. However, the members of the selection committee were not impleaded as parties to the writ proceedings. In this context, the learned http://www.judis.nic.in  wa 1584 of 2019 Senior counsel relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Singh vs. Chairman, Purvanchal Gramin Bank and others reported in (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 292 wherein it has been held that the burden of proving mala fides/ nepotism/favouritism in selection process is very high on the person alleging it unless there is sufficient material for the Court to presume bona fides and regularity of proceedings. The learned Senior counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Nandlal Jaiswal reported in AIR 1987 SC 251 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court expunged the sweeping remarks made against the respondents therein on the ground that there was not even an iota of evidence to arrive at a conclusion of mala fide, as, in this case, to arrive at a conclusion of malafide.

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.

24. Mr. Issac Mohanlal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Interim Administrator appointed by this Court would contend that the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board failed to adhere to Rule 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 which led to large scale violation in the selection process. All the Associate Professors in all the colleges within the fold of Pachaiyappa's Trust Board ought to have been considered for promotion, but in the present case, it was not done. The Pachaiyappa's Trust Board runs six private colleges and is considered as a single unit, while so, one common selection with a rank list for the selection of Principals of all the four colleges is desirable. The post of Principal being promotional post, the Associate Professor/Professors working in all the colleges under the Management of Pachaiyappa's Trust Board ought to have been considered in the selection process. Even though the notifications indicate that the Associate Professors/Professors are eligible to apply, it was worded in such a manner that the applicants can apply for the post of Principal of a particular college only. Thus, the eligible applicants were restricted to be considered in the selection process which is in clear violation of Rule 11 (4). Further, the selection to the post of Principal has to be done as per the norms prescribed by the UGC with reference to Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in http://www.judis.nic.in  wa 1584 of 2019 Universities and Colleges and measures for the Maintenance in higher education Regulations, 2016 read with Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Rule 11 of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulations), Rules 1976. Even though in the Circular dated 20.04.2018 it was mentioned that selection will be on the basis of UGC Regulations, 2010, the Circular was issued by omitting clause sub-clause (iv) of Clause 4.2.0 of UGC Regulations, 2010, which is one of the vital conditions prescribed in the UGC Regulations, 2010. Even in the affidavits filed in support of Writ Petition Nos. 12126, 12127, 12128 and 12129 of 2018 allegations of favouritism, influence, hurried selection process have been raised, for which, no proper reply has been given in the counter filed on behalf of the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board. As regards the distinction between the selection to the post of Principal Grade -I and Principal Grade-II, there is no distinction made in the UGC Regulations to justify the stand of the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board to issue separate notifications for the colleges under their administrative control. Further, the applicants who participated in the selection process have submitted their applications along with enclosures running to 200 to 300 pages but it is not clear as to whether all the credentials of the candidates have been considered before the interview or not. By referring to the Annexure to UGC Regulations, 2010 and the stages involved in the selection process as per UGC norms, the learned Senior counsel for the Interim Administrator would contend that the selection procedure for the post of Principal is to be objective and creditable analysis on the basis of merits. Instead of following the method of assessment provided under UGC norms, the selection committee followed it's own norms and selected the candidate. A study of the mark awarded by the selection committee in all these four colleges reveal a http://www.judis.nic.in  wa 1584 of 2019 pattern. Almost all the members have awarded identical marks with slight variations under 22 heads except for the marks for interview. Further, the members in the selection committee have signed blank mark sheets so as to enable the authorities to put the marks for their convenience and select the candidate of their choice. The interview marks only tilts the selection. In any event, in the absence of any credible materials to show that the norms were followed in assessing the merit and awarding consolidated API scores, the selection is exfacie illegal and it vitiates the selection process.

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.