Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents No.2 & 3, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology and its Registrar, stating that as per Regulation 6.3.2, 6.3.7 and 6.3.11 of the Regulations, 2010, it is necessary to obtain minimum marks as per Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS proforma) and also in the expert assessment before the Selection Committee. An interview is based on the expert assessment and that a candidate must secure more than 50% marks on the basis of score card out of 80 marks and also obtain more than 50% marks out of the score card of 20 marks in the interview. It was further submitted that if the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, then only Academic Performance Indicators marks is required to be considered and if a candidate gets more than 50% marks in API scores, he need not to appear in the interview, which is not logical. Reliance is placed on the Regulation 6.3.2 of the Regulations, 2010 on minimum qualifications, which reads thus:-

"6.3.2 Candidates who do not fulfill the minimum score requirement under the API Scoring System proposed in the Regulations as per Tables II (a and
b) of Appendix III or those who obtain less than 50% in the expert assessment of the selection process will have to be re-assessed only after a minimum period of one year. The date of promotion shall be the date on which he/she has successfully got re-assessed."
6.3.2 Candidates who do not fulfill the minimum score requirement under the API Scoring System proposed in the Regulations as per Tables II (a and b) of Appendix III or those who obtain less than 50% in the expert assessment of the selection process will have to be re- assessed only after a minimum period of one year. The date of promotion shall be the date on which he/she has successfully got re-assessed."

As per Appendix III Table II(A), the relevant portion of the Minimum Academic Performance Indicators as provided in Appendix-III Table-I to be applied for the Promotion of Teachers under CAS in University Departments, and Weightages for Expert Assessment, from the post of Assistant Professor (Stage 4) to Professor/equivalent cadres (Stage 5), is as under:-

Gazetted Ministerial Staff Association Vs. Registrar General, R.H.C., reported in 2010(2) WLC (Raj.) 746, employer is the best judge to prescribe eligibility criteria.

15

There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down in the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents. However, the same does not help the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the University has adopted the Regulations in its letter and spirit but fell in error while applying Regulation 6.3.2 of the Regulations, 2010. As per the said Regulation, candidates who do not fulfill the minimum score requirement under the API Scoring system provided in the Regulations as per Table-II (A&B) of Appendix-III or who obtain less than 50% in the expert assessment of the selection process will have to be re-assessed only after a minimum period of one year, which shows that for the promotion to the post of Professor, minimum requirement is 50 marks out of 100 marks in the "Expert Assessment System" and it is nowhere prescribed under the Regulations, 2010 that for the promotion of Teachers under CAS, a candidate is required to obtain 50% marks in the interview alone. Further, Table-II (A & B) of the Appendix-III of the Regulations, 2010 specifically prescribes the percentage distribution of weightage point in the expert's assessment (total weightage = 100. Minimum required for promotion is 50). In the aforesaid table, against column-V and row 4 & 5, it is very specifically stated that since the appointments were from Stage-3 to 4 and Stage-4 to 5, there had to be 80% marks for contribution for research and assessment of domain knowledge & teaching practices with 20% marks for interview performance. Further, a bare perusal of the Guidance for Assessment/Director Recruitment as Professor/ Equivalent again prescribes minimum qualifying marks for appointment, and for the unreserved category 50 marks are required for qualifying for appointment. Thus, the UGC regulations, nowhere prescribe to obtain 50% marks in the interview alone and nor such resolution was passed by the University. Thus, the interview marks alone are being considered under the Expert Assessment under a mistaken belief and mis- interpretation of the Regulations.