Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

iv) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses, and technology- mediated teaching learning process with evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students.

v) A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), set out in this Regulation in Appendix III of UGC Regulations and subsequent amendments.

3. The petitioner further attacks the qualification of the fifth respondent and submits that one of the mandatory qualifications required was a minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) set out in Regulations in Appendix III of the UGC Regulations and subsequent amendments. If the candidate was found lacking in the prescribed minimum qualification or requirements, the application itself ought to have been rejected. As per Ext.P2 UGC Regulations, in category I of Appendix III, the minimum API score required is 75 out of 125. The petitioner had scored 123.9 score out of 125 under Category I as the prescribed minimum score was 75 and he had 50 out of 50 in Category II of Appendix III against the prescribed minimum score of 15. The Screening committee therefore found that the petitioner had fulfilled the requirement. When it came to the fifth respondent, as is seen from Ext.P4, he was not even awarded the minimum required API both under Category 1 and Category II of Appendix III and though the Screening Committee initially wrote "fulfilled" the said writing is seen scored off and instead it was written as "may be called for interview". The petitioner submits that these contentions are not met in the counter affidavit and all that is stated by the University is that the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent had the required API to be invited for the interview. This assertion is against Ext.P4 and nothing on record suggests that the fifth respondent had the requisite API score. Even the application of the fifth respondent was not in the prescribed format and the application form obtained under the RTI Act proved the same. Under such circumstances, the petitioner argues that he alone was qualified and ought to have been granted the first rank, and at any rate, in the vacancy that arose when the fifth respondent resigned, he should have been appointed