(A) Service Law – Appointment for Principal – Grace marks – Rejection of candidature – Intra Court appeal against allowing writ – Plea that respondents were required to secure 55% marks without having the benefit of grace marks in their post-graduate degrees – Plea Rejected – Held: The plain meaning of the provision is that once the benefit of relaxation of 5% is taken, the threshold would not be further lowered by admitting candidates who had cleared the degree with grace marks. Manifestly, the said Clause applies exclusively to SC/ST and differently abled candidates and does not deal with the general category candidates.
The candidate must have gained master’s degree with at least 55% marks, or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed, by a recognised University. There is no dispute that both the respondents/writ petitioners had cleared the Master’s Degree with 55% marks, albeit by grant of grace marks.
Once having taken advantage of this relaxation, these candidates would not be entitled for dual advantage of grace marks when the criterion of minimum marks is being applied for recruitment to a post. For being considered on the post of Principal, a candidate of General Category is allowed to achieve the 55% threshold marks in Graduation/Post Graduation even with grace marks. Thus, the view taken by the learned Single Bench after interpretation of the UGC Guidelines is apropos and was justly applied for adjudicating the controversy.(Para 13, 14)
(B) Service Law – Appointment for Principal – Experience – Rejection of candidature – Intra Court appeal against allowing writ – Plea that it essential that the aspirants for the post of Principal must have gained experience of guiding Research Candidates in their doctoral level. However, the experience certificates presented by the respondents were acquired from unrecognised institutions/establishments which were imparting degrees in Offline Campuses. As such the certificates were not compliant with the UGC Guidelines. Plea rejected – Held: There is no specific indication in this Clause that the candidates must have the experience of having guided candidates for research at doctoral level or post-graduate level. (Para 7, 15)
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
2023 STPL(Web) 103 Gauhati
[GAHC010200772018]
The State Of Assam Vs. Dr. Amalendu Nag
WA 195 of 2019 with WA 284 of 2017-Decided on 18-9-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-STPLWeb-103-Gauhati.pdf
