Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ths

4. Placing reliance on this, it is pointed out that the petitioner secured 80 marks; whereas, the fourth respondent secured only 39 marks. Therefore, considering the API score, learned counsel would fault the selection or call it flawed. According to the petitioner, she has secured first division in the 10th standard, first division in the 12th standard, first division in BA, first division in B.Ed. and has passed the NET and has also got Ph.D. The fourth respondent, on the other hand, was only doing her Ph.D. course, as is evident from the marks obtained. Learned counsel would further contend in paragraph 15 of the writ petition as follows:

Instead of clause 6.1.0 it may be read as 6.0.1 (Dr. (Mrs.) Pankaj Mittal) Joint Secretary APPENDIX - III TABLE - II(c) Minimum Scores for APIs for direct recruitment of teachers in university departments / Colleges, Librarian / Physical Education cadres in Universities / Colleges, and weightages in Selection Committees to be considered along with other specified eligibility qualifications stipulated in the Regulation.

            Assistant Professor / Associate                Professor       /
            equivalent      cadres Professor         /     equivalent cadres
            (Stage 1)              equivalent cadres       (Stage 5)
                                   (Stage 4)
Minimum     Minimum Qualification Consolidated API         Consolidated API
API Scores as stipulated in these score requirement        score requirement
            regulations            of 300 points           of 400 points
                                   from category III       from category III
                                   of APIs                 of APIs
Selection   a) Academic     record a)      Academic        e)       Academic
Committee   and           Research Background              Background
criteria  / Performance (50%)      (20%)                   (20%)
weightages b) Assessment        of b)        Research      f)        Research
(Total      Domain      Knowledge performance              performance
Weightages and Teaching Skills based on API                based on API
= 100)      (30%)                  score and quality       score and quality
            c) Interview           of    publications      of     publications
            performance (20%)      (40%)                   (40%)
                                   c) Assessment of        g) Assessment of
                                   Domain                  Domain
                                   Knowledge and           Knowledge and
                                   Teaching Skills         Teaching Skills
                                   (20%)                   (20%)
                                   d)       Interview      Interview
                                   performance             performance
                                   (20%)                   (20%)

12. We are also in agreement with the respondents that higher API scored by the petitioner cannot be the basis for impugning the selection of the fourth respondent, which was, in turn, done by the experts.

13. Our attention was drawn to a Bench decision of this Court in Kiran Sood vs. Secretary, MKP (PG) College Society and others, reported in 2016 (1) UD 201.

14. It is settled law that selection by experts must ordinarily not be interfered with by courts. Unless it is clearly illegal or mala fide, a selection made by the experts will remain immune from judicial interference. There is no case of illegality apart from the case based on API, which we find unacceptable. There is no specific case of mala fide as such pleaded.