Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The concerned tables as are mentioned in para 6.0.1, determines that API score, is only for the purpose of screening and it has no further objective while making selection of a candidate to the post of Assistant Professor by the Expert Committee.

13. When this aspect is taken into consideration, then it is evient that Clause 6.0.1 of Regulations of 2010, provides that "overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of merits and credentials of applicants based on weightages given to the performance of the candidate in different relevant dimensions and his/her performance on a scoring system proforma, based on the Academic Performance Indicators (API), as provided in this Regulations in Tables 1 to 9 of Appendix - III.

15. The University may adopt the template proforma or may device their own self assessment cum performance appraisal forms for teachers in strict adherence to API criteria based PBAS prescribed in these Regulations."

16. In Appendix - III, Table-2(c), it is provided that minimum API scored for screening for the post of Assistant Professor/ Equivalent cadre (stage one), will be minimum qualification as stipulated in these Regulations. It is provided that minimum scores for APIs for direct recruitment for teachers in University Departments/Colleges, Librarian/Physical Education cadre in Universities/Colleges and weightages in Selection Committees to be considered along with other specified eligibility qualifications prescribed in the Regulations.

24. Contrary to this, vide amendment dated 13.06.2013, firstly, it is provided that API scores will be used for screening purpose only which is not mentioned in the Regulations of 2010 and secondly, Clause 6.0.2 of the amended Regulations provies that the University can, if they wish so, increase the minimum required score or device appropriate additional criteria for screening of candidates at the level of recruitment. This has not been provided in the Regulations of 2010, and therefore, the subsequent departure in the practice of giving weightage to API i.e. constituting of academic record and research performance and assessment of domain knowledge 8 RP-423-2024 cannot be substituted by the expert assessment of candidates which was only to the extent of interview performance and that too upto 20% where interviews were in terms of Clause 6.0.1, was entitled to assess the ability for teaching and/or research aptitude through a seminar or lecture in classroom situation or discussion on the capacity to use latest technology in teaching and research was restricted only to interview stage.

30. Thus, once the private respondent was assessed under the General category vide Annx.P/5, then she could not have been given appointment under OBC category and that action of the University has been rightly held to be illegal while deciding the writ petition.

31.Thus, there is departure in 2013 Regulations, as regard to API scores which has no retrospective application and which provides that API scores will be used only for the purpose of screening and will have no 10 RP-423-2024 bearing on experts assessment of candidates in direct recruitment which is not the case in reference to the Regulations of 2010, and therefore, that being the distinction, API scores are required to be taken into consideration by the Selection Committee and after taking them into consideration will have to give marks for the interview. Therefore, when tested from this aspect, there is no error apparent on face of record in the impugned order calling for interference.