Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The petitioner submitted that based on the API score and also PBAS, the petitioner is more meritorious than the third respondent in all aspects. The petitioner has published more books, research papers and articles than the third respondent. The third respondent is not at all qualified and not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis having minimum qualification. Moreover, the petitioner has done her research work in Sangam Literature, which is a preferential criteria stated in the advertisement. The petitioner has served as Editor, who edited and published the Research Paper series in 9 volumes in the year 2015. The petitioner conducted various seminars, workshops, endowment lectures on various topics. The petitioner is more meritorious than the third respondent. In spite of the same, the petitioner was not granted any appointment. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and the petitioner has raised various other grounds and prayed to allow the writ petition.

8. The first respondent had filed a counter affidavit stating that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the petition has been filed beyond limitation and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer /Assistant Professor and hence, the petitioner is eligible to count her teaching experience only from 25.06.2007 and cannot claim teaching experience prior to that date. Acting as HOD does not give any specific right to the petitioner to be appointed as Professor, since direct appointment to the post of Professor is only by way of merit and hence, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis averments made in paragraph 12 deserves no consideration. Based on Reservation Committee report dated 28.10.2015, fresh notification dated 27.04.2017 was issued including separate recruitment for SC/ST backlog and current vacancies and the Advertisement No.12/2016 was issued to fill up the two sanctioned posts of Professor in the Department of Literature duly allotting first post for General Turn and second post for SC/ST (Backlog vacancy) as per 200 point roster system as per G.O.Ms.No.241 P & AR Department dated 29.10.2007 and the petitioner has not raised any plea against the vacancy position. Totally 26 candidates applied for the said two posts of Professor in Literature Department and after the report of the Screening / Scrutinizing Committee, eligible candidates were called for to attend an interview and eight candidates including the petitioner and the third respondent attended interview and the third respondent was selected under General Turn and another one Dr.Elayappillai was selected under SC/ST backlog vacancy on their merits by the Selection Committee and they were appointed as Professors in the Department of Literature, vide order dated 03.06.2017. Since the petitioner did not come within the zone of selection on merit basis, has filed this writ petition against the selection and appointment https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of the third respondent by making false allegations. The candidates are at liberty to apply for more than one post of their choice if the candidate fulfils the qualification and norms prescribed for the said post. One Dr.Kavitha had applied for the post of Professor in Literature Department and the Professor in School of Indian Languages and Comparative Literature. The said Kavitha was selected for the post of Professor in School of Indian Languages and Comparative Literature based on her merit. The first respondent submitted that the qualification prescribed for the post of Professor in Literature by the respondent University in the web-site, is as per the UGC guidelines. In the advertisement, Sangam Literature and Grammar has been prescribed only as desirable qualification and it is not a mandatory or prescribed qualification as per UGC guidelines and hence, a candidate without Research work in Sangam Literature and Grammar shall be appointed as Professor provided the candidate fulfills all other criteria and norms prescribed by the UGC. Hence, there is no irregularity or illegality in appointing the third respondent. Though the third respondent had Research work in Ph.D. in Modern Literature and she had other accomplishments which were considered while granting Academic Performance Indicator (API) score based on Performance Based Appraisal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis System (PBAS) as set out in the UGC Regulations and hence, the third respondent was selected by the Selection Committee.

10. The third respondent is having ten years experience. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer / Assistant Professor on 25.06.2007 and the said service was considered and similarly the service of the third respondent as Lecturer from 27.07.2005 has been considered and the third respondent has longer service than the petitioner as a Lecturer and hence, the third respondent has been rightly selected as per service which is in accordance with Clause-10.1 of UGC Regulations 2010. Guiding of M.Phil. and Ph.D. students is not the only criteria for appointment to the post of Professor as per UGC guidelines. The publications made and various other accomplishments of the candidates including the petitioner has been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis considered to calculate API score based on PBAS as per UGC Regulations 2010. The percentage for possessing the qualification for selection are given as under: 

                            a) Academic Background                                    20%
                                  Research Performance based on API score and
                            b)
                                  quality of publications                     40%
                                  Assessment of Domain Knowledge and teaching
                            c)
                                  skills                                      20%
                            d) Interview Performance                                  20%
                                                                                Total 100%