Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. BPUT came out with another advertisement dated 19th July, 2017 for the post of Associate Professor for its constituent colleges. The Appellant is stated to have applied for the post along with all the requisites and API score with separate summary sheet for each Centre. The Selection Committee called the Appellant for an interview on 18th February, 2018 with the condition of fulfillment of the required API score. The Appellant is stated to have appeared before the Selection Committee. His API score in Categories-I, II and III was about 263. The Appellant was informed verbally that his API score in Category-III was way below than the required score 300. He was accordingly debarred from attending the interview.

4. It is in the above background that W.P.(C) No.4281 of 2018 was filed by the Appellant in this Court. One of the grounds of challenge was that his candidature could not have been rejected on the basis of the API score since this was not a stipulation in the initial advertisement issued on 26th February, 2014; even if it had been provided in a notification dated 5th March, 2010 of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) or the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulation, without it being adopted by the State Government or reflected in the advertisement, it could not form the basis for rejection of the Appellant's candidature. It was further contended that in other technical colleges, for which the advertisement was issued, there was no such stipulation of minimum API score. Since there were many vacancies, the Appellant had a legitimate expectation of getting the appointment.

5. The response of the State was that in terms of the UGC Guidelines, the minimum API score was a mandatory requirement. For the post of Associate Professor, a candidate had to get the consolidated API score of 300 points in Category-III. This requirement had been formulated by the UGC in terms of Section 26 (1) (e) & (g) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act) as well as an Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 23rd October, 2008 of the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) read with another O.M. dated 30th August, 2008 of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) and in terms of a notification dated 31st December, 2008 of the MHRD. Reference was also made to the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2010 (hereafter UGC Regulations of 2010) which were in supersession of the earlier set of UGC Regulations made in 2000.

13. As noted by the learned Single Judge, Clause 4.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, mandated the candidate possessing the minimum API score based on the Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS). Therefore, it is futile for the Appellant to contend that the above norm of possessing the minimum API score was not applicable since the Appellant had applied pursuant to the initial advertisement dated 26th February, 2014. The fact remains that the Appellant applied again pursuant to the last advertisement issued in 2017 and by this time, it was clear that the UGC norms would apply for selection to the post in question.