Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri M.V. Samarth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri K.K. Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri P.A. Abhyankar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

2. This petition challenges the report of the Scrutiny Committee constituted for fixing the Academic Performance Indicator (API) score of the petitioner for selection on the post of Principal of Babaji Date Kala and Vanijya Mahavidyalaya, Yavatmal. It is urged that the score of 320 in respect of API, by the Scrutiny Committee was in total disregard to the 4 th Amendment by the University Grants Commission (UGC), vide Notification dated 11.07.2016. Consequently, the report of the Selection Committee, rejecting the petitioner for the post of Principal based on API score as reflected in the report of the Scrutiny Committee, is also the subject matter of challenge in this petition. The petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to follow the provisions of Direction No. 6 of 2017 read with 4th Amendment of UGC Notification dated 11.07.2016.

3. It is not the stand taken by any of the respondents that the Scrutiny Committee has in fact scrutinized the API score of the petitioner as per Direction No. 6 of 2017 read with UGC Notification dated 11.07.2016, though the report of the Scrutiny Committee refers to Direction No. 6 of 2016. We find that the rejection of the petitioner for the post of Principal by the Selection Committee is substantially on the ground that the report of Scrutiny Committee in respect of API score of the petitioner, which is said to be at 320, falls short of the minimum score of 400. In what manner it is calculated as per Direction No. 6 of 2017 read with UGC Notification dated 11.07.2016, has not been pointed. It is the defence raised by the College that the petitioner has accepted the API score during the course of oral interview. We do not find any such acceptance recorded by the Selection Committee in the minutes of the meeting.

4. In the absence of calculation of score of the petitioner in respect of API in accordance with Direction No. 6 of 2017 read with UGC Notification dated 11.07.2016, the entire process of Selection Committee stands vitiated and it will have to be set aside with liberty to the respondents to conduct fresh selection process including calculation of API score by the Scrutiny Committee, in accordance with Direction No. 6 of 2017 read with UGC Notification dated 11.07.2016. As the petitioner was the only candidate for interview for the post of Principal, the position has not become irreversible.

5. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The report of the Scrutiny Committee submitted on 15.08.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. It shall be open for the respondents to conduct fresh process of selection for the post of Principal, after getting API score calculated in accordance with Direction No. 6 of 2017 read with UGC Notification dated 11.07.2016.

6. Writ petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.