Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.2. The selection process was conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee, which included representatives from the Office of the Chancellor, the State Government, and the University.

The interview for Respondent No.4 was conducted on 22.07.2014, [2025:RJ-JD:10372] (4 of 13) [CW-5619/2014] but before the results were declared, the petitioner approached the Court and obtained an interim order directing to re-conduct of the interview. The interview was re-conducted on 28.08.2014 and confirmed Respondent No.4 as the most meritorious candidate, and the results were produced before the Court on 12.09.2014. 3.3. After considering the legal opinion and in the absence of any stay, the Board of Management (BOM) proceeded with the appointment of Respondent No.4 on 30.09.2014. The petitioner's challenge was primarily based on two grounds: (i) Respondent No.4 allegedly did not have the requisite 10 years of teaching experience, and (ii) Respondent No.4's API score was allegedly miscalculated. Both allegations are baseless as Respondent No.4 met all eligibility criteria, and the API score was assessed per the prescribed norms.

3.4. During the pendency of the writ petition, at the instance of the State Government, a committee was constituted to examine the appointment of respondent No.4 in question, as well as the qualifications of Respondent No.4. The expert committee found that the API score awarded to Respondent No.4 was correctly assessed and that there was no irregularity in the selection process.

3.5. Furthermore, in light of Regulation 4 and Regulation 10 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, read with the clarification issued by the UGC, the selected candidate i.e. Respondent No.4 fulfills the requisite experience of 10 years, including the experience gained as a research scholar.

3.7. On 16.02.2021, the University conducted an inquiry into complaints against Respondent No.4's appointment. On 20.02.2021, the BOM decided to conduct an inquiry, and a committee was formed on 03.05.2021. However, the fresh committee, after a detailed examination, justified the API score awarded to Respondent No.4 and opined that his appointment was proper. The inquiry report was accepted on 15.09.2022, and proceedings were dropped by the University vide Resolution No.06 dated 01.10.2022.

"Report
1. However in the interest of the things, the committee relooked into the various categories of API Score and found that API Score has been rightly awarded as per the UGC API guidelines by Statutory Selection Committee under the Categories of Research Publication, Conferences, Research guidance, Seminars and invited lecturers, training programs etc.
2. The committee considered each and every aspect and came to the conclusion after the due deliberations that the calculation of the API score made by Statutory Selection Committee i.e. 442 at the time of Selection for the post of Associate Professor and Professor WHICH IS justified in our opinion.