Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

25. Clause 6.2.0 stipulates that minimum norms of selection committee and selection procedure as well as API score requirement for above cadres, either through direct recruitment or through CAS, shall be similar. The UGC Regulations exhaustively prescribe norms for assessment of cadre for the purposes of grant of benefit under CAS. Clause 6.3.2 provides for minimum eligibility and is reproduced hereinafter:-

"6.3.2 Candidates who do not fulfill the minimum score requirement under the API Scoring System proposed in the Regulations as per Tables II(a and b) of Appendix III or those who obtain less than 50% in the expert assessment of the selection process will have to be re-assessed only after a minimum period of one year. The date of promotion shall be the date on which he/she has successfully got re-assessed."

30. So far as petitioner's claim is concerned, it is admitted to the University that her API score was above 120 and she was entitled to face selection committee. The records reveal that though petitioner's API score was treated as 127.5 but the fact finding committee found petitioner's entitlement to be 147.5, which was 20 points higher than the score of respondent no.6. The fact finding committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor has clearly recorded such fact in para 3 of its report. While submitting its clarification in response to the queries raised by Vice Chancellor, two member committee has reiterated that petitioner got highest marks in assessment of domain knowledge with teaching practice and interview performance amongst the three candidates, and that she was eligible for promotion on grounds of having the highest API score. The Registrar in his order dated 7th December, 2018 has recorded that the report of fact finding committee has been accepted by the Vice Chancellor subject to comments made therein. In substance, the report has been subjected to Clause 4, which has already been extracted above.

34. So far as legal proposition canvassed on behalf of respondents is concerned, the same is well too settled. The scope of judicial review is extremely limited in such matters, and unless the action is shown to be actuated by bias, mala fide or arbitrariness, it would not admit of interference by this Court. It is on this yardstick that facts of the present case would require examination.

35. Under the statutory regulations of 2010, which are binding upon the University, the consideration for selection in CAS has to be based on transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of applicants based on weightage given to the performance of a candidate in different relevant dimensions on a scoring system proforma based on API as prescribed in Table 1 to 9 of Appendix 3 to the Regulations. The API score of a candidate is based upon candidate's credentials quantified on relevant material and same material exists for consideration before the selection committee as well. It is not that selection committee is bound to award same marks as are assessed while evaluating API score but the material being same for assessment a drastically different opinion would ordinarily not be countenanced. No specific shortcoming as per the parameters stipulated in the regulations has been pointed out, so far as petitioner's claim is concerned.

36. It is in this background that materials placed on record before the Court needs evaluation. The recommendation of the fact finding committee, which has not been reversed by the Vice Chancellor clearly shows that petitioner's API score ought to be 147.5 instead of 127.5. There is no reason why petitioner's assessment by the selection committee was not in consonance with her entitlement as per the API score. The Vice Chancellor's comment noticed in the order dated 7th December, 2018 merely states that respondent no.6 fulfills mandatory requirement of 120 points and is having in actual 127.5 points, but there is no denial or adverse observation regarding the finding that petitioner's API score was 147.5. An obvious question that therefore arises is as to why petitioner was assessed by the selection committee on API score which was much below her entitlement.