Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.6. It is contended that as provided in the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Petitioner's API score being quite high, she was shortlisted and called for interview vide notice issued under Annexure-7. But on the ground that the Petitioner could not secure the cut-off mark in the interview and accordingly she was not recommended by the Commission, is not sustainable, as no such cut-off mark was fixed by the Commission while holding the interview. Not only that since no reservation was provided for Sports Person, Petitioner was also deprived to get the benefit of such reservation. Not only // 6 // that on the face of the order passed by this Court on 26.09.2022 and subsequent order passed on 27.10.2022, the provisions of 1994 Rules was also not followed while rejecting Petitioner's claim vide the impugned order dt.20.12.2022 under Annexure-12.

5. To the stand taken by the Commission, Petitioner made further submission basing on the stand taken in the rejoinder affidavit. It is contended that since taking into account the API score of the Petitioner, she was shortlisted and called for interview, on the ground that the Petitioner could not secure the cut- off score, she could not have been deprived from being recommended by the Commission. It is contended that the Commission randomly selected 12 candidates without taking into account the API score of such candidates. Since the Petitioner has secured the highest API score, she should have been recommended and appointed as against the post of Asst. Professor, Sociology bereft of her performance in the interview. It is also contended that while conducting the interview, the Commission never followed the regulation issued by the UGC in the year 2018 and no cut-off mark was ever fixed.

// 14 //

8. To the stand taken in the additional counter affidavit, an objection was filed by the Petitioner. Placing reliance on the stand taken in the objection, Petitioner contended that even though in the advertisement out of 15 vacancies 2 were reserved for SC, 2 for ST and 2 for SEBC, but the Commission in its recommendation dtd.23.05.2022 recommended 7 candidates who belong to Reserve category and accordingly it exceeds the ceiling of 50% reservation in public employment. It is also contended that 2 (two) SC reserve category candidates recommended against UR (Women) vacancy had not participated in the recruitment process, but were recommended by the Commission. It is also contended that since Petitioner has the highest API score, Petitioner taking into account her API score and the mark secured in the interview should have been recommended. But the Commission did not follow the stipulation contained in Para-6 of the advertisement and the UGC Regulation, 2018 in that regard. Because of such action of the Commission, Petitioner was deprived from the purview of selection and recommendation.