Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner states that in addition to the qualifications and credentials, which were submitted, as per the UGC Regulations, a candidate to the post of Professor by direct recruitment should possess a minimum score of 400 as stipulated in the API based on PBAS and unless and until the applicant has this qualification and has a minimum score of 400, the question of being eligible to apply does not arise and they are not to be considered. Therefore, the petitioner would state that the respondent University is bound by the UGC Regulation stipulating the minimum API score as prescribed in the Regulation and without adhering to the same, the respondent University has constituted a Selection Committee and the procedure adopted by the respondent University is illegal. Further, it is submitted that the UGC Regulations require that prior to the Selection, the University has to evaluate the research papers by the experts with the assessment report and marks awarded in case of CAS promotions. The petitioner would state that he was surprised to find when he attended the interview that candidates who have been called, have secured less than 400 points as API score, which revealed that no evaluation was done by the subject experts and the selection process is contrary to the UGC Regulations, which is mandatory. It is further submitted that the manner of evaluation for direct recruitment to the post of Professor, has not been adhered to and the minimum 400 points API requirement has been given a goby. By relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the the fourth respondent stating that in his self appraisal, he has stated that he had 160 points and was not confident of not being called for interview, but he was called for interview, which would go to show that there has been no evaluation. It is further submitted that the selection committee in utter disregard to the UGC Regulations has awarded marks to all candidates and several of the applicants including the fourth respondent do not have the minimum requirement and therefore, ineligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Professor. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also submitted a representation before the Vice Chancellor and there was no response to the representation and therefore, he has approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition for the aforementioned relief.

6. Mr.A.L.Somayajee learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned standing counsel for the respondent University submitted that the Writ Petition is pre-mature, has been filed on a wrong premise and liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent University calling for applications for direct recruitment to the post of Professor in the Department of Nuclear Physics under the category 'General-GT', six candidates applied which includes the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 7. All six candidates were found eligible and were called for interview, however the third respondent did not attend the interview, which was held on 29.11.2014, as he attended the interview for his CAS promotion from Assistant Professor (Stage 4) to Professor (Stage-5). It is submitted that the applications received by the candidates, are scrutinised by School Chair Person and those who are found eligible, are called for interview. Five candidates attended the interview, which was held on 29.11.2014. Further, it is submitted that the publications and the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based on PBAS was placed before the experts for scrutiny on 28.11.2014 to evaluate the publications and the API scores as per the UGC guidelines, which states that the self assessment score will be based on verifiable criteria and will be finalised by the Selection Committee. It is further submitted that the API score and evaluation of publications of the candidates, as evaluated by the experts was placed before the Selection Committee which was held on 29.11.2014, as per the UGC guidelines and the same has been strictly adhered to. It is further submitted that it is not known as to whether the fourth respondent has secured only 160 points as his API score, since the evaluation done by the experts have been put in a sealed cover and to be placed before the Selection Committee in its meeting.

12. On the first issue raised by the petitioner, the respondents have undertaken and accepted that they will carry out the selection process strictly in accordance with the regulations and they will recommend only candidates who satisfy the minimum API score requirement for being appointed for the post of Professor. This undertaking has been made in more than one place in the counter affidavit filed by the Registrar of the respondent University. Therefore, the respondent University is bound by their statement in the counter affidavit that they will strictly abide by the UGC Regulations. In such circumstances, it has to be seen as to how the petitioner seeks to make out a case of violation of the UGC Regulation. The contention raised by the petitioner is that apart from other qualifications prescribed the UGC guidelines specify that the candidate should have a minimum score as stipulated in the API based PBAS as set out in appendix III of the regulation, which states that the consolidated API score requirement of 400 points from category III of APIs. Therefore, the petitioner's submission is that unless and until the applicant/candidate has secured this minimum API score of 400, he is ineligible to apply.

16. Admittedly, the selection process is yet to be over. The API based on PBAS is stated to have been placed before the experts, who are three in number, for scrutiny on 28.11.2014. The result of the scrutiny is yet to be disclosed. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the same is kept in a sealed cover to be submitted to the Selection Committee. Therefore, the experts would have assessed, the self assessment forms submitted by the candidates self assessing their API score, the publications research projects, research guidance, papers presented in conference etc., and make an evaluation of each of the candidates. This is purely the job of an expert, in the field of academics and this Court will not venture into the manner of assessment, as it is best left to the decision of the experts.