Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Brief facts of the case are that vide advertisement dated 10.10.2017, online applications were invited for the post of Principal in Hindu College, University of Delhi, New Delhi. Accordingly, on 10.11.2017, the petitioner submitted his completely filled online application form for the said post.

3. On 15.01.2018, pre- screened data for the aforesaid post was declared wherein List-I contained names of the eligible candidates on the basis of the API Scores but, without API Score against the names. List-II contained names of the ineligible candidates with their respective API Scores and reason for ineligibility. Since the name of the petitioner was not in the eligible candidates, therefore, he sought information under Right To Information Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as RTI Act, 2005) regarding the pre-screened data for the post of Principal released on 15.01.2018.

10. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is meeting the entire necessary criterion and submitted fully filled online application form for the said post within the prescribed window. It is pertinent to mention here that, partially filled application forms do not get submitted on the web portal of online applications. For instance, every category in which API score is sought, documents to support the same have to be uploaded, without which there will be a "field empty error" preventing the submission of the form. The fact that the petitioner successfully filled the form, which includes claiming API scores and uploading its respective documentary proof, shows that there was no discrepancy in the form filled by the Petitioner as claimed by respondent No. 2 in the non-eligibility list. The Screening Committee, after an analysis of the pre-screening data, issued the result thereof, which consisted of the List I of candidates eligible for interview (without reflecting their API scores) and List II of candidates ineligible for interview (with API scores and reasons for ineligibility reflected against each name). The said pre- screened data is appended herewith and marked as Annexure P-3. For highlighting the issue of non-transparency and arbitrariness in preparing the pre-screened data which was released, an illustration of how similar declarations are usually made by colleges, declaration by Kirori Mal College in a similar matter, is appended herewith and marked as Annexure P-4.

15. The respondent No. 2, Governing Body of Hindu College through its Chairman has filed an affidavit to the petition whereby stated that he being well conversant with the facts of the present case and duly competent to file this affidavit. He submitted that the University of Delhi decided to start the process for filling up the post of Principal in various colleges through online mode by inviting applications from the candidates from all over India through centralized online Registration Portal. This was communicated to the college vide letter dated 22.03.2017 laying down the procedure and guidelines for filing up the post of the Principal. The applications received for the post of Principal were to be screened on the basis of Academic Performance Indicator (API) Score Card as prescribed by the University. As per the guidelines for calculating API Score for research and academic contributions for the post of Principal, consolidated API score required is 400 points from categories II and III of API (cumulative). Candidates securing requisite API score were to be called for interview.

27. Whereas, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner specifically argued that the API score is not self assessment score, it is generated by the computer automatically. For example, the moment any Research Articles/ papers in the application is filed online, the score will come automatically. But the learned senior counsel named above for respondents No. 1 and 2 argued that there is no such system however, it was assessed by the petitioner himself and the screening Committee given him zero API score, for the reason that there was no impact factor of the Research Articles / Papers mentioned in 5.1 (III A) which is at page 43-44 of the petition. Further argued, since he could not get the appropriate score i.e. 400, therefore his name was published in the category of non- eligible candidates. Moreover, in 5.2 (III B) of the application, the papers published by the petitioners are not related to his subject i.e. History. For the said purpose also the petitioner could not get any API score and initially he was given API score 95, thereafter, on a revision it was increased to 128.