Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. As per the afore Regulations, the API score of a teacher is to be calculated in the manner as provided in Appendix III and this appendix III contains Tables I, II(A), II(B) and III.

7. Table I provides for certain common criteria for assessment of the API marks for promotion as well as for direct recruitment and it has three sub Categories, namely, (I) Teaching, Learning and Evaluation Related Activities, (II) Professional Development, Co-curricular and Extension Activities and (III) Research and Academic Contributions. The specific manner of scoring of marks is postulated in these Categories.

23. As per Table II(A), the minimum API score for Categories II and III is 600 points per assessment year, while, as per Table II(B), the minimum API is 400 points, but without specifying the period. There is a marked difference in the manner in which these two Tables operate because, in the case of a teacher aspiring for promotion under the CAS, her entire period of service will have to be taken into account for the purpose of evaluating the minimum API marks under Category II, while in the case of a teacher aspiring for promotion (which is considered as direct recruitment by the UGC), she will get the benefit of a maximum of 45 marks for the assessment year in question. Therefore, even though Table II(A) provides for a minimum of 100 API marks under Category II, it would not apply to the petitioner, since she is not aspiring for a CAS promotion, but only for a regular promotion/direct recruitment as the Principal of the third respondent College.

"13. It is also pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent College that, the appellant had challenged the order of termination passed by the 3rd respondent, based on the report of the Expert Committee constituted by this Court, in a separate writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel had further raised a contention that the appellant had not raised any specific ground in the Memorandum of writ appeal against constitution of the Expert Committee by this Court. However, we take note of the fact that the learned Single Judge had already quashed Ext.P17 proceedings of the University. Therefore, it is necessary to have a reappraisal of the eligibility of the appellant, in order to decide the question as to whether her appointment can be approved or not. In that adjudication, it becomes relevant as to what should be the method through which such reappraisal need to be done. We are of the considered opinion that, the approval of appointment is a matter which comes within the competence of the University. Decision in this regard need to be taken by the Syndicate or by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of power under Section 10(17) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act,1985. In the case at hand, if the court finds that the decision taken in this regard by the Syndicate or by the Vice Chancellor is illegal or erroneous in any manner, proper course ought to have been adopted is to remit the matter back to the University for taking a proper decision in a legally acceptable manner. We find that there was no need for this Court to constitute a committee of its own, to make a reappraisal. Such a course adopted by the learned Single Judge will amount to permitting an external authority to usurp into the powers vested on the University. On an active consideration of the factual situations prevailing, we are of the opinion that Ext.P17 order passed by the University suffers from illegality and impropriety, apart from it violates principles of natural justice. When the appellant claimed API score of 1218 based on proforma submitted with supporting documents, its evaluation ought to have been made with opportunity of hearing afforded to her, especially when the committee found that the claim made is not sustainable and the allowable score is only 273. Further, before accepting the report of the Expert Committee, the University ought to have supplied a copy of the report of the committee to the appellant and could have afforded her with an opportunity to file objections, if any against such report. Since these requisite formalities and procedures were not complied with, mere acceptance of the report made by the Vice Chancellor based on the recommendation of the sub committee, cannot be sustained as legal and proper. We think it only appropriate to direct the competent authority in the University to afford the appellant with an opportunity to question correctness of the appraisal made by the Expert Committee. It is just and proper that the competent authority in the University shall look into such objections and to take an appropriate decision based on the parameters settled through the UGC Regulations for appraisal of the API score based on Performance Based Appraisal System(PBAS).

15. The competent authority in the University, who is vested with powers for approval of appointment shall consider such objections, vis-a-vis the report of the Expert Committee, on the basis of the UGC Regulations-4th amendment, which came into effect as on 11th July, 2016, and which provides the guidelines (parameters) for appraisal of the API score. A decision in this regard shall be taken after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. Needless to observe that, if the competent authority arrives at a conclusion that the appellant is lacking the requisite API score of 400, as on the date on which she was appointed as Principal of the College, the authority will be entitled to refuse approval of the appointment. On the other hand, if it is found that the appellant satisfies the requisite score, the appointment should be approved."