AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the amendment in Ordinance 141D vide Notification No.16 issued on 12th January, 2017. A further prayer
is for appointment on the post of Associate Professor (Botany).
It is a case where the respondent University issued an advertisement on 22nd May, 2017 for direct recruitment on the post of Associate Professor in
different branches. The petitioner applied for the post of Associate Professor (Botany). The petitioner was allowed to participate in the selection but
was not called subsequently. No written order was sent to her but apprehending herself to be ineligible in reference to the Notification dated 12th
January, 2017, present writ petition was filed to challenge the aforesaid and, more specifically, para 21 of the Ordinance 141D where the word
“Evidence of having guided Doctoral candidates’ was defined and clarified. The petitioner presumed herself to have been rendered ineligible in
absence of production of certificate of concerned university/institution for submission or re-submission of Ph.D. thesis by the students under her
guidance.
It is submitted that the petitioner was only a Research Scholar thus could not have guided doctoral candidates under her so as to submit thesis given by
them. The requirement of Ph.D. thesis was thus not proper. It is otherwise hit by the Regulations of University Grants Commission providing minimum
qualification for the post.
A specific reference of the Notification issued by the UGC on 30th June, 2013 was given to indicate as to how allocation of marks has to be made on
Academic Performance Indicator (for short “APIâ€). Therein, the cap for API score was removed. It was required to be taken into consideration
by the respondents. The Notification was issued by the UGC on 11th July, 2016 whereby the University Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications
for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and other measures for the maintenance of the standards in higher
education) (2nd Amendment) Regulations, 2013 was brought, which reads as follows :
“Provided also that the API score claim of each of the sub-categories in the Category
III (Research and Academic Contributions) shall not have a cap except for the sub-category of invited lectures/papers.â€
As a consequence, the table at Regulation 6.0.1 of the University Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other
academic staff in Universities and Colleges and other measures for the maintenance of the standards in higher education) (2nd Amendment)
Regulations, 2013 stands deleted.â€
The API score in Category III was deleted so as the table of Regulation 6.0.1 of the Amending Regulation, 2013.
In the light of the aforesaid, a research candidate was not required to possess the qualification contrary to what has been given by the UGC under
their Regulations. The University has made amendment in the Ordinance ignoring the aforesaid and further amendment was made by the impugned
Notification dated 12th January, 2017 thus has been challenged herein.
We have considered submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The facts available on record show an advertisement to call for the applications for the post of Associate Professor in different branches. The
petitioner applied for the post of Associate Professor (Botany) and appeared in the selection. The required qualification for the post of Associate
Professor for direct recruitment under Ordinance 141E are quoted hereunder for ready reference :
“(2) ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
(i) Good academic record with a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned/allied/relevant disciplines.
(ii) A Master’s Degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed).
(iii) A minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and/or research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in
a University, College or Accredited Research Institution/ industry with evidence of published work and a minimum of 5 publications as books and/ or
research/ policy papers.
(iv) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses, and technology â€" mediated teaching learning process with evidence
of having guided doctoral candidates and research students.
(v) A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based  Performance  Based  Appraisal System
(PBAS), set out in Table-1 of Appendix-III.
(vi) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates for the post in the specialized field of remote sensing and geographical information system
should also possess a Post Graduate Diploma/equivalent degree or higher degree in the field of remote sensing and geographical information system
from a
University/Govt. institute/recognized institute.â€
The qualification under para 2(iv) needs contribution to the educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses and technology â€" mediated
teaching learning process with evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students. This is one of the requisite
qualifications to be possessed for direct recruitment for the post of Associate Professor. The words “evidence of having guided doctoral
candidates†are otherwise defined in para 21 of the Ordinance 141D, which reads as under :
“(21)‘Evidence of having guided Doctoral candidates’ wherever occurring in these Ordinances means a certificate(s) issued by the
concerned University/ Institute etc. to the effect of submission/resubmission of the Ph.D. thesis.â€
The aforesaid was inserted vide Notification dated 17th October, 2012 and not by the Notification dated 12th January, 2017, as alleged by the
petitioner. Even if the definition of “evidence of having guided doctoral candidates†given under para 21 of the Ordinance 141D is ignored, the
requirement of evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students remains and it is admitted by the petitioner that she was not
having any guided doctoral candidate and research student being involved in the research work and not in teaching.
If that is so then the petitioner was not in possession of required qualification hence further requirement of a certificate pursuant to para 21 of the
Ordinance 141D remains of no significance and otherwise it was not amended vide Notification dated 12th January, 2017 but was vide Notification
dated 17th October, 2012. The earlier Notification dated 17th October, 2012 is not under challenge. The writ petition has been filed presuming an
amendment in the Ordinance vide Notification dated 12th January, 2017, whereas, no amendment in para 21 of the Ordinance 141D has been made,
rather, it was inserted by the Notification dated 17th October, 2012.
In view of the above and as the petitioner appeared in the selection without protest to the qualification required for the post of Associate Professor
and having rendered ineligible later on, cannot challenge the Notification dated 12th January, 2017 and otherwise it was by presuming amendment in
para 21 of the Ordinance 141D of the University Ordinance, whereas, the Notification for it was issued on 17th October, 2012. If, at all, para 21 of the
Ordinance is held to be illegal or ultra vires, the question would still remain as to whether the petitioner is in possession of required qualification given
under Ordinance 141E for direct recruitment. The petitioner is, admittedly, not in possession of any evidence having guided doctoral candidates and
research students. In absence of it, she was not even qualified to compete for the post of Associate Professor (Botany).
The issue of award of API marks remains relevant only for the candidates who are in possession of required qualification and not otherwise. If a
candidate is not in possession of required qualification, the reference of API marks becomes irrelevant. Learned counsel for the petitioner yet made a
reference of allocation of API marks on different heads which includes 10 per cent towards research guidance. The research guidance is one of the
requisite qualifications and is not possessed by the petitioner. Thus, we do not find force in the argument in reference of the API marks also.
In view of the above, we do not find any substance in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.