Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

xi) The respondent no.7 has only API Score 133 (in points) as per UGS regulation. Whereas, the petitioner has API Score 2009 (in points) which is much higher than the score of the respondent no.7.

xii) The respondent no.7 has received only one award at National Cancer Institute. Whereas, the petitioner has received 24 awards out of them 8 state awards, 9 national awards, 7 young/best/junior scientist awards with 2 gold medals.

24. That so far as the respondent no.8 is concerned according to the brief resume/application form of the respondent no.8, his qualification is that :-

(xi) The respondent no.8 has only API Score 232.5 (in points). Whereas, the petitioner has API Score 2009 (in points) which is much higher than the score of the respondent no.8.

(xii) The respondent no.8 has no record in respect of getting any award. Whereas, the petitioner has received 24 awards out of them 8 state awards, 9 national awards, 7 young/best/junior scientist awards with 2 gold medals."

Heard Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 to 6 , Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare for the respondent no.7 and Sri Nitya Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel fro the respondent no.8 and perused the documents on record.

We have already noted that the Advertisement is silent so far as the requirement of minimum score in the API as required in Tables I to IX of Appendix III. Therefore, in our opinion, the requirement of a minimum score in the API was not an essential qualification for the purposes of selection to the post of Assistant Professor, Bio-Technology (Engg. & Tech.).

The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the Advertisement under the "eligibility qualifications" also mentions a requirement of- (i) teaching, research industrial and/or profession experience in a reputed organisation; (ii) papers presented at Conferences and/ or in refereed journals as "Desirable" and submitted that the respondent no. 7 did not have any teaching experience either in PG Classes or UG Classes. His research guidance in M.Phil or equivalent was '0', his training courses, teaching-learning evaluation, Technology etc. was 20, papers presented were 60. His total API score was 133. So far as the respondent no. 8 is concerned, his period of teaching experience in PG and UG Classes were '0', his research publication total API score was 150 and his presentation in Conferences was also NIL. His total API score was 232.5 whereas the API score of the petitioner was 767.50 (and not 2009) at the time of submission of the application form and therefore, the API score being a desirable qualification for purposes of selection could not have been ignored.

In our opinion, the Advertisement is required to be strictly in conformity with the standards laid down by the UGC Regulation, 2010 and cannot deviate from the same. The Advertisement may provide for certain additional qualifications or score or research papers or teaching experience under a heading of 'Desirable' but that itself was not an essential qualification for selection since the UGC Regulations did not stipulate the same. Therefore, even though such qualifications may have been mentioned under the heading of 'Desirable', in our opinion, the number of research papers or the number of years of teaching experience or total API score itself would not be the sole or only criteria for selection of a candidate if he otherwise fulfils all the other essential qualifications mentioned in the UGC Regulations, 2010 and in the Advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor, Bio-Technology.