Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. It is stated that pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner has applied for the post of Professor in Odia. Along with his application, he has submitted a calculation sheet of his "Academic Performance Indicator" (API) score. As per his own calculation, he has secured 364.87 points, whereas eligible requirement is 400 points. Thus he is not eligible for the post of Professor. In view of the same, he has not been called for the interview. It is further stated that as per Appendix-III Table II(c) of UGC Guidelines, 2010, the minimum requirement of API score for the post of Professor is 400 points. Since the petitioner secured less than 400 points, he is not eligible for the post of Professor in Odia.

4. Heard Mr. Umakant Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pratap Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

5. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has a brilliant academic record. He is eligible for the post of Professor in Odia, but then the opposite parties committed a manifest illegality in not issuing call letter to him to attend the interview.

6. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties, submitted that the petitioner is not eligible for the post of Professor in Odia and, as such, he has not been called for the interview. He further submitted that as per Appendix-III Table II(c) of UGC Guidelines, 2010, the minimum requirement of API score for the post of Professor is 400 points. Since the petitioner secured less than 400 points, he was not eligible for the post of Professor.

8. The preamble of the UGC Act proclaims:

"An Act to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in Universities and for that purpose to establish a University Grants Commission."

9. The University Grants Commission, in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, frames the Regulations, namely, University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations"). The said Regulation was amended in 2013. Appendix-III Table-II(c) of the amended Regulation provides for minimum scores for APIs for direct recruitment of teachers in university departments/Colleges, Librarian/Physical Education cadres in Universities/Colleges, and weightages in Selection Committees to be considered along with other specified eligibility qualifications stipulated in the Regulation. It postulates the consolidated API score of 400 points from category III of APIs.

10. The question does arise whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to appear at the interview when the Regulation provides minimum API score 400 points and the petitioner secured 364.87 points. ?

11. In A.P Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1986 SC 1490, the Supreme Court held that direction cannot be issued to the University in transgression of the provisions and the regulations of the University. No direction can be issued to disobey the statute, to which it owes its existence, and the regulations made by the University. Any direction by the Court to disobey the law would be destructive of the rule of law.