Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Learned counsel for the University, Sri Kshitij Shailendra, has stated that no counter affidavit can be filed on behalf of University on account of the insistence of the counsels for the petitioner to permit the petitioner to participate in on going interview for the post in dispute, which is not in accordance with the Regulations.

5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the controversy in the present case is regarding providing marks for work done as a teacher. Regulation 6 provides for performance of candidates on grading system proforma based on Appendix - II, Table - 1, 2, 3-A, 4 and 5. The experience as mentioned in Regulations is different for the purpose of counting of past services for direct recruitment and promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) as give in Rule 10, though counting of past services for direct recruitment does not relate with respect to the experience as provided in Regulation 6. Regulation 6 provides for grading for the purpose of short listing in which experience is one of a component for providing certain marks for screening purposes and not for the counting of the services. The petitioner was appointed in the self finance scheme wherein; (a) petitioner had a qualification as provided by UGC (b) petitioner was selected as per procedure provided by the Government Order dated 13.03.2020; (c) Government order has been issued by the State Government under the State Universities Act read with the direction given by the UGC; (d) Payment to the teachers are being given out of total fee realized in which 70% is used for disbursing the salary of the staff. Therefore, as per concurrence of the UGC as well as State of U.P., petitioner has been appointed as a Lecturer in self finance scheme in duly recognized institution by the State of U.P in college affiliated to the University which is also duly recognized under the provision of University Grants Commission, therefore, appointment of the petitioner is absolutely as per rule of UGC, therefore, his experience of working in the self finance scheme should have been considered by the screening committee. The relevant judgments of counting the services rendered by the petitioner in self finance scheme, either for intermediate or for the Degree Colleges, has been considered in the judgment reported in 2010 (5) ESC 3498 (All) and in 2013 Vol-4 UPLBEC 2330. Hence, the petitioner has wrongly been denied 10 marks against the experience and only 81 marks has been awarded and if 10 marks had been given then petitioner would have got 91 marks and the minimum cut off is 87.17 marks only. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to be called for interview.

10. After hearing the rival contentions, this court finds it relevant to refer to Regulation 6 (relevant part), 10 and 13 of the UGC Regulation 2018 which are as follows:-

" 6.0 SELECTION PROCEDURES:
I. The overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on weightages given to the performance of the candidate in different relevant dimensions and his/her performance on a grading system Performa, based on the Appendix III,Tables 1, 2, 3 A, 3 B, 4 and 5.