Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) That the 2nd respondent is not National Eligibility Test (NET) qualified.

(iii) That the 2nd respondent did not sign Part B of the hard copy of the application.

(iv) That the 2nd respondent has been awarded 7 credit points under serial No. 2.3 of the Academic Performance Indicator (API) score sheet. According to the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent did not produce any valid documents to support the aforesaid award of points.

(v) The 2nd respondent was given 20 credit points for externally funded research under serial No. 2.5 of the API score sheet, which is totally unwarranted, as no documents had been produced by the 2nd respondent. He had only submitted a WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases proposal to a funding agency and the argument of the petitioner is that grant of an external funded project to an institution can never be construed as one granted to an individual for claiming such a credit.

(vi) 3 points was granted to the 2nd respondent under serial No. 2.7-C of the API score sheet. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent had only produced a letter from the Swedish Institute of Space Physics, whereby he was offered a post doctoral position for a project, in which he was paid a stipend, which according to the petitioner does not amount to a fellowship.

(vii) As per UGC Regulations, 20 points is earmarked for assessment of 'Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills' and 20 points for interview. Contention urged by the petitioner is that the head domain knowledge and teaching skills coming under serial No. 3 has been further split up by providing separate points. 10 points for additional teaching experience, 10 points for post doctoral research experience, 5 points for participation in workshops and 5 points for academic, administrative experience. Still further, the total score under the said head is limited to a WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases mere 10 points. Thereafter evaluation of teaching skills/presentation is separately considered at serial No. 3.5 and it is allotted 10 points. The argument is that, by bifurcating domain knowledge and teaching skills, the UGC regulations have been violated, which demands that the scoring system proforma is to be based on API score as provided in Table I to IX of Appendix III. According to the petitioner, the teaching or research aptitude can be assessed only at the interview stage and not in this manner.

13. Yet another contention urged was that the 2nd respondent was awarded 7 credit points under serial No.2.3 of the Academic Performance Indicator (API) score sheet, which is in relation to conference proceedings. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated as under:

"At the stage pre-interview verification, I had submitted the screen shots of the website which hosted conference proceedings and the programme sheet for talks. All the details regarding the proceeding are clearly written on the website screen shots and the originals were verified by the Selection Committee."

16. As per UGC Regulations, 20 points is earmarked for assessment of 'Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills' and 20 points for interview. The head domain knowledge and teaching skills coming under serial No. 3 has been further split up by providing separate points. 10 points for additional teaching experience, 10 points for post doctoral research experience, 5 points for participation in workshops and 5 points for academic, administrative experience. The total score under the said head, however is limited to 10 points. Thereafter evaluation of teaching skills/presentation is separately considered at serial No. 3.5 and it is allotted 10 points. It is argued that, by bifurcating domain knowledge and teaching skills, the UGC Regulations have been violated, which demands that the scoring system proforma is to be based on API score as provided in Table I to IX of Appendix III. In fact, UGC Regulations, 2010 has been amended in 2013, and clause 6.0.2 read as under: