Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.2. The learned counsel appearing for the University Grants Commission, who has been impleaded suo motu by the order of this Court dated 28.11.2014, submitted that the Regulations are very clear. As per the proviso, API scores cannot be used for Expert Assessment of candidates. In other words, API scores would be used for screening purpose only. Insofar as the PBAS is concerned, it is for the Universities to adopt the template proforma or devise their own self-assessment-cum- performance Appraisal Forms for teachers. However, while adopting this, the University shall not change any of the categories or scores of API given in Appendix III. Hence, it is submitted that appropriate orders have to be passed on merits.

Provided also that the API score claim of each of the sub-categories in the Category III (Research and Publications and Academic Contributions) will have the following cap to calculate the total API score claim for Direct Recruitment/CAS.

Sub-Category Cap as % of API cumulative score in application III(A): Research papers (Journals, etc) 30% III(B)Research publications (Books, etc.) 25% III(C)Research Projects 20% III(D) Research Guidance 10% III(E) Training Scoress and Conference/Seminar, etc. 15% In order to make the system more credible, universities may assess the ability for teaching and/or research aptitude through a seminar or lecture in a class room situation or discussion on the capacity to use latest technology in teaching and research at the interview stage. These procedures can be followed for both direct recruitment and CAS promotions whereever selection committees are prescribed in these Regulations.

19. Clause 6.0.9 speaks about the API scoring system in the process of selection and the assessment by the Selection Committee with the appropriate weightages. It is apposite to reproduce the said provision.

6.0.9 The Academic Performance Indicator (API) scoring system in the process of selection of Principal shall be similar to that of directly recruited College Professors. In addition, the selection committee shall assess the the following dimensions with the weightages given below:

a. Assessment of aptitude for teaching, research and administration (20%);
24. Clause 6.1.0:-
As discussed above, there is no difficult in understanding the object and rationale behind clause 6.1.0. It makes it abundantly clear that over all selection process shall have transparent objective and credible methodology. Though the proviso states that API scores will be used for screening purpose only but it should be construed inconsonance with Regulation 6.0.9. In other words, the marks obtained by way of API scores form a different category and they do not have any bearing on the expert assessment on the candidates. To put it differently, the API scores cannot act as a bar with respect to the expert assessment of Clause a to d of the Regulation 6.0.9 as dealt with already. The object and rationale behind this is to prevent a selection solely based upon API scores and give a elbow room for the expert assessment.