Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. It is further submitted that the Selection Committee consist of the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University as its Chairman, Vice Chancellor of Mother Therasa University as the Chancellor's nominee, Chairperson, School of Physical Sciences of the respondent University and three experts one of whom is an expert and a Schedule Caste nominee. It is further submitted that previously the recruitment of Reader/Professor was done in terms of G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 24.03.1999, by placing the publications of the candidates for evaluation by experts before the conduct of the Selection Committee meeting and the marks obtained for publications were carried over while determining the best suitable candidates for the post and at the relevant time, there was no API scoring. After the UGC Regulations 2010 came into force both API and publications are placed before the experts for scrutiny before the Selection Committee. Therefore, it is submitted that the API score and evaluation of publication are assessed by the experts before the suitability of the candidate is assessed by the Selection Committee made. Further, in the counter affidavit, the respondent have stated that the Selection Committee shall strictly adhere to the UGC guidelines and would recommend only the candidate who satisfy the minimum API score required to be appointed for the post of Professor. With the above submission, the learned Advocate General prayed for vacating the interim order granted and dismissal of the Writ Petition.

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.

13. On a careful reading of the UGC guidelines does not specify that this score should be certified prior to the submission of the application. In our words, the UGC guidelines does not state that the candidates should first get his API score evaluated and on such evaluation, if he secures the minimum score of 400, he would be eligible to apply. This requirement of minimum score is under clause 4.1.0 (A)(iv) and this requirement falls under the Chapter direct recruitment. In the absence of any such stipulation under the UGC guidelines, the respondent University cannot be faulted in receiving applications from candidates. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the counter affidavit states that all applicants namely, the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 7 were found eligible and by referring to an affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, who has self appraised his API score at 160, the petitioner tries to make out a case that the fourth respondent himself states that he does not possess the minimum API score yet he was called for interview and therefore, the entire procedure adopted has to be faulted.

14. Firstly, it has to be pointed out that the petitioner has not disclosed as to his API score based on his self assessment. In the absence of any requirement under the UGC guidelines to obtain prior evaluation of the API score much prior to the submission of application, the petitioner cannot seek to introduce a procedure not contemplated under the UGC Regulations.

15. It is not in dispute that at the time when the candidate applies while submitting his credentials along with his publications etc., he submits an Academic Performance Indicators Cumulative Score Table, this score table is based on a self assessment done by the candidate, since the table contains a declaration stating that the candidate declares the particulars furnished are true to his knowledge. A self assessment is always subject to approval and scrutiny by the competent authority. There may be cases where the self assessment could have been exaggerated or in certain cases underestimated. Therefore, self assessment of API score cannot be the basis to throw out an application by a candidates for the said post. Curiously enough the petitioner has enclosed the application of the seventh respondent, but conveniently omitted to file his own application and his self appraisal of API score and this document has not been placed before this Court for best reasons known to the petitioner.