Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Relying on clause 6.0.1 it was contended that analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants ought to have been on the basis of his/her performance on a scoring system proforma, based on the API Scores provided at Table-I to IX of Appendix-III to the UGC Regulations, 2010. It was alleged that even though intimations were issued to the writ petitioners in accordance with the UGC Regulations,2010 requiring production of their API scores, the selection committees did not accept the API scores or even advert to the same for assessing the comparative merit of the candidates. In support of this contention, Exhibit P13 score sheet, with respect to the selection of Assistant Professors in Environmental Studies was produced.

12. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup and Sri.Jaju Babu, and learned counsel Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, appearing for the appellants, Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan and Sri.Elvin Peter appearing for the party respondents, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the University and Senior Counsel Sri.George Poonthottom appearing for the former Vice Chancellor, who has been impleaded in his personal capacity.

13. Assailing the findings in the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that inasmuch as Ext. P1 notification did not provide for reckoning of API scores as a criterion for selection, the non-reckoning of the API scores of candidates was of no avail. It is pointed out that, under Appendix- III Table-II(c) to the UGC Regulations, 2010 there is no stipulation for reckoning of API scores as a criterion for recruitment of Assistant Professors, whereas in the case of Associate Professor and Professor, consolidated API scores requirement of 300 and 400 points respectively, is prescribed. It is contended that having participated in the selection pursuant to Ext. P1 and having failed to challenge the notification on the ground of absence of stipulation for reckoning API scores, the contention that non- reckoning of API scores as a criterion for selection has rendered the selection invalid, ought to have been rejected.

19. In addition to the grounds successfully canvassed before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the respondents made the following submissions in support of the impugned judgment;

The constitution of the Selection Committee being against the mandate of Regulation 5.1.1, the fact that appointment of the selection committee members was not separately challenged will not efface the illegality. The University having admitted of having WA.2419, 2427 & 2440/19 21 considered API scores as a parameter to assess academic achievements and teaching skills of candidates during the selection process, the contention that minimum API scores is not a criteria for selection to the post of Assistant Professor is liable to be rejected. In answer to the contention that minimum API score is not prescribed in Appendix-III Table II(c) for Assistant Professors, it is argued that, even in such a case, API score was liable to be considered for weightage along with the specified eligibility qualifications. It is pointed out that some teachers of the University had earlier approached this Court challenging the power of the Executive Committee without the requisite quorum to pass resolutions regarding policy matters. The challenge was on the ground that the resolutions passed by the Executive Committee is in violation of Section 14(6) of the University Act which prescribes the minimum quorum for an Executive Committee meeting. It is pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court had found substance in the challenge and had issued Exhibit P10 interim order, restraining further appointments or policy decisions concerning the administration of the University being taken by an Executive Committee without quorum. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that even with respect to the selection process under challenge in the instant case, an Executive Committee WA.2419, 2427 & 2440/19 22 without quorum had taken the decisions.

21. The learned Standing Counsel for the University points out that the First Statutes of the University was framed by the Government only as per SRO No. 57/2020 dated 9.12.2019.

22. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, statutory provisions and the precedents.

23. Appendix-III Table-II(c) of Part III to the UGC Regulations, 2010 justifies the contention of the appellants. Even though in the Table attached to Appendix-III, a column is set apart for minimum API scores, in the case of Assistant Professors, no consolidated API score requirement is prescribed, unlike in the case of Associate Professor and Professor. A reading of Clauses 6.1.0 and 6.2.0 also make it evident that Tables-I & III of Appendix-III are applicable to the selection of Professors/Associate Professors/Assistant Professors in Universities and Colleges and Table-II(c) of Appendix- III provides norms for direct recruitment of teachers of different cadres. API score not having been prescribed as a criteria for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor, the finding in the impugned judgment that the specifications contained under Clause 6.0.0, as well as the Appendix are not followed by the interview board cannot be sustained.