Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3) The petitioner has challenged the impugned selection list on the ground that while calculating the API score of the petitioner, the official respondents have not taken into account three weeks on job training undergone by the petitioner regarding which a certificate had been issued by Director, Extension Education, SKUAST, Kashmir. It has been submitted that the petitioner had undergone the said course in the year 1998 and the certificate was issued on 20 th October, 1999. It has been submitted that a similar two weeks on job training course certificate issued in favour of respondent No.6 has been considered by the official respondents and two points have been allocated in her favour while calculating her API score. According to the petitioner, had she been given three points for three weeks on job training course undergone by her in the year 1998, regarding which she had produced the requisite certificate, she would have secured extra three points and made the grade. It has been submitted that the official respondents have deliberately applied selective approach in an arbitrary manner by awarding two points to respondent No.6 in respect of similar certificate and denying the credit of the same to the petitioner, thereby causing grave prejudice and discrimination against the petitioner.

8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the record relating to selection which is subject matter of the writ petition.

9) The short point which is required to be determined in this case is as to whether, while computing the API score of the petitioner, the official respondents were justified in excluding the certificate dated 20 th October, 1999, issued in favour of the petitioner, whereunder it was certified that she had undergone on job training course in Sericulture in the year 1998. The consistent stand of the official respondents in this regard is that the certificates which did not specify the duration of the course were not considered by the Selection Committee while calculating the API score of a candidate. The contention of the petitioner is that a similar certificate in respect of respondent No.6 was considered by the Selection Committee while as in the case of the petitioner, the certificate produced by her was ignored. The other contention of the petitioner is that at the time of filing of objections, she had submitted certificate dated 15.11.2001 which clarified the position as regards the duration of course in respect of which certificate dated 20th October, 1999 had been issued by the respondent University. It has also been contended by the petitioner that the certificate in question was issued by the respondent University, therefore, the respondents could have easily ascertained the duration of the course from its record.

Minimum scores for APIs for direct recruitment in University for Assistant Professor Academic record and service record Marks Marks obtained duration duration weeks duration
11) In the case of the petitioner, she was allocated 46.52 points out of 80 points in her API score card. She was given one point for training of one week's duration. If her contention that she had undergone three weeks on job training course is accepted, then she was entitled to three more points under the heading "trainings", which would have fetched her 49.52 points in the API score card. However, her certificate regarding on job training course undergone by her in the year 1998 has not been taken into consideration.

12) A perusal of the record relating to selection shows that a similar certificate issued in favour of respondent No.7 has not been taken into consideration by the official respondents while calculating his API score. So far as respondent No.6, with whom the petitioner is claiming parity, is concerned, the certificate produced by her along with her application form clearly indicates the duration of the course undergone by her. As per the said certificate, respondent No.6 has undergone on- job training course in Sericulture at Sericulture Training Institute, Srinagar, from 14.01.2003 to 01.02.2003 and the certificate has been issued on 2nd February, 2003. In the case of the petitioner, the certificate produced by her along with her application form does not specify the duration of the course and it is because of this reason that the said certificate has not been taken into consideration. As already stated, a similar certificate issued in favour of respondent No.7 has also not been taken into consideration while calculating his API score.