News Updates

Kerala HC Quashes Appointments Of Four Assistant Professors By Aligarh Muslim University For Violating UGC Norms [Read Judgment]

Live Law News Network
28 Nov 2018 2:32 PM GMT
Kerala HC Quashes Appointments Of Four Assistant Professors By Aligarh Muslim University For Violating UGC Norms [Read Judgment]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The High Court of Kerala has set aside the appointments of four assistant professors in Aligarh Muslim University at Malappuram centre. The Court found that the appointment was not done following the procedure in 'UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education,2010'.

The judgment was delivered on petitions filed by persons who had applied to the post of Assistant Professor in Management Studies & Research .

As per Clause 6.01 of the UGC Regulation, the Selection Committee has to award marks to the candidates separately for the components 'a', 'b', 'c', i.e , Academic Records and Research Performance (50%), Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills (30%) and Interview Performance (20%). In the case, the University awarded consolidated marks in the interview in the scale of 10.

The petitioners contended that that the marks awarded by the selection committee are only based on the performance in the interview and no marks have been awarded under the criteria 'a' and 'b'.The University stated that the marks were awarded by the selection committee only after adverting to the aforementioned criteria.t also held that the University cannot award consolidated marks and should award the marks separately under the categories provided.

The Court held that it was clear that the University had not followed the UGC Regulations

"The consolidated marks could not have been awarded in interview performance under the whole head of a to c. The University has to award marks separately under the category 'a and b' based on the records made available before the University. The marks could be awarded by the University objectively based on the interview  performance only under category 'c'", held the judgment by Justice Muhamed Mustaque.

The Court noted that The UGC consciously fixed the maximum marks of 20% for interview to avoid arbitrariness.

On the basis of records produced by the petitioners, the Court noted that the University had earlier conducted selection by making separate assessment under categories 'a' and 'b' following the UGC Regulations in 2011. "It is not known why the selection committee departed from such method of assessment for selecting candidates pursuant to the notification which is under challenge in the writ petition", the court observed.

It was also found that marks were given in “age” factor. The Court stated that as per the UGC Regulations, no marks can be awarded reckoning “age” as a factor

The appointments of four assistant professors were set aside and University was directed to undertake fresh selection process as per UGC norms. However, they were permitted to continue till fresh selection is made, which was directed to be done within a period of two months.

Read Judgment

Next Story