Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2 2 speaking to minutes May be corrected and allowed to be read as under , "petitioner was the only candidate for interview for the post of principal, position has 'now' become irreversible.""

3. This application is made under assumption that this Court has mistakenly mentioned the word "not" in place of "now" in paragraph 4 of the order dated 08.01.2019.

4. Initially, Writ Petition No. 7300 of 2017 was filed raising a challenge to the report of the Scrutiny Committee constituted for fixing an Academic Performance Indicator (API score). The requisite score qualifying for the post of Principal was 400, however, the Scrutiny Committee has assessed the petitioner's score as 320. Being aggrieved by such wrong calculation of API score, the petitioner has principally come to this Court. It was urged that while calculating API score, the Scrutiny Committee in total disregard to the 4th amendment of the University Grants Commission (UGC) vide notification dated 11.07.2016, calculated API score. This Court while deciding Writ Petition has accepted the petitioner's stand that API score was not calculated in accordance with the direction No. 6 of 2017 read with 4th amendment of UGC notification dated 11.07.2016. With such a principle finding, this Court has set aside the entire process of Selection Committee with a liberty to the respondents to conduct fresh selection process. Not 3 2 speaking to minutes only that the Court expressed to conduct fresh process once, but it has expressed twice in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment.

7. It is argued that this Court ought to have directed to properly calculate API score and to proceed from that stage instead of directing fresh process. As a matter of fact said relief was not granted, which cannot be urged under the guise of speaking to minutes by circumlocution. The petitioner after failure in contempt petition has belatedly came for change of word to suit his purpose.