Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The said applications were to be screened on the basis of Academic Performance Indicator ("API") Score. Since the application is made online, the candidate fills up details in a kind of self-assessment. The computer programme itself generates the API Score. As per the UGC guidelines, for Category II i.e. Professional Development and Category III i.e. Research and Academic Contributions, the consolidated API score required is 400. This is the minimum that a candidate must secure to become eligible for the interview. These API scores are based on an applicant‟s self assessment which in turn was to be based on verifiable records. This was to be finalised by the Screening Committee.

8. The API score as claimed by Respondent No.1 was 496, but the PSC reduced it to 95 as explained in the following tabular form:

Category                                    API Score API Score as awarded by
                                            claimed         by the PSC
                                            Respondent No.1

curricular and Extension Activities

journals

articles

Honour/Awards                               (Honour/Awards)

9. The Screening Committee met on 13th January, 2018 and examined the applications of the 22 candidates and their API scores, as compiled by the PSC. The Appellant issued a notification on 15th January, 2018 appending two lists. List 1 contained the names of 10 candidates who were eligible for interview and list 2 of the 15 candidates not found eligible. The name of Respondent No.1 figured in list 2.

(vii) The fact remained that Respondent No.1 failed to secure the requisite API score of 400. His initial API score of 95 was increased to 128 by the Screening Committee but this was still below the benchmark. The application form of Respondent No.1 was full of discrepancies which explained the extreme variation in the API scores given by him and by the PSC.

(viii) The learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that the selection was only between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.5 whereas 12 candidates out of 22 were found eligible for the interview. There were certain other candidates also whose API scores were revised and did not make it to the stage of interview. Therefore, it was not as if Respondent No.1 was singled out for a differential treatment.

32. The principal grievance of respondent No.1 was regarding the reduction of his API score to 95 by the PSC and then to 128 by the Screening Committee, thus rendering him ineligible to be called for the interview by the Selection Committee. The benchmark of an API score of 400 is only for determining the eligibility of the candidates to appear at the next stage in the selection process i.e. to appear in the interviews. The API score as filled in by the candidate in the application form is a kind of self assessment. On that basis, an algorithm is run by the computer and an API score is generated. This is reviewed by the PSC and the revised API with the requisite information is placed before the Screening Committee. The task of preparation of the list of candidates eligible to be called for interview is of the Screening Committee. This list is then examined by the Selection Committee which interviews the short-listed candidates and gives its recommendation which is then placed before an Apex Committee.