Dr. Sandip Saha v. The State of Tripura

Judgment

#1. Academic Record Graduation

#2. Post-Graduation

#3. M. Phil.

#4. 5.

#6. Ph.D. NET with JRF NET SLET/SET Research Publications (2 80% =21 80% =25 60% =07 25 10 08 05 06

#8. marks for each research publications published in Peer Reviewed or UGC listed Journals) Teaching/Post Doctoral Experience (2 marks for one year each) Awards International/National Level (Awards given by International Organisations/Government of India recognized National Level Bodies) State-Level (Awards given by State Government) 10 03 02 #However, if the period of teaching/post-doctoral experience is less than one year then the marks shall be reduced proportionately. Note:(A) (i) M. Phil. + Ph.D. JRF/NET/SET (ii) (iii) In awards category B. Number of candidates to be called for interview shall be decided by the college. C. Maximum – Maximum – Maximum – 25 Marks 10 Marks 03 Marks = 84 Academic Score Research Publications = 06 = 10 Teaching Experience TOTAL = 100 SLET/SET score shall be valid for appointment in respective D. State Universities/Colleges/institutions only.”

#6. The appellant was eligible for being considered for the post of Assistant Professor, Government (General) Degree Colleges in the subject of Physical Education as the appellant had all the requisite qualifications as mentioned in the said advertisement and accordingly, the appellant applied for the said post. It was also submitted that the appellant obtained Ph.D. in Physical Education from Annamalai University in 2015. Accordingly, the certificate has been issued by the concerned University. The appellant also served in two spells as Assistant Professor in Abhiruchi Institute of Physical Education, Sarusajai, Guwahati, affiliated to Guwahati University, w.e.f. 10.11.2014 to 25.07.2016 and again from 20.02.2017 to 06.01.2018. The Director of the said institution issued an Experience Certificate in his favor. The appellant also served as an Assistant Professor, at Lovely College of Physical Education, Punjab, w.e.f. 08.01.2018 to 02.07.2018. The Principal of the LPU issued certificate to the effect. It was further submitted that since 02.07.2018 to till date the appellant was serving as Assistant Professor, Health & Physical Education at Bhavans’ Tripura College of Teacher Education. The Principal, of the said College has issued experience certificate to that effect. The appellant served as Assistant Professor of Lovely College of Physical Education, Jalandhar, Punjab, w.e.f. 08.01.2018 to 02.07.2018. In all the institutes the Appellant served in the UGC Scale as Assistant Professor.

#7. The Under Secretary, TPSC, vide notification dated

13.10.2022 published extract of minutes of the Scrutiny Committee in connection with recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor, Government (General) Degree Colleges. In that notification, it was mentioned that the said minutes has been uploaded in TPSC website and all the candidates were instructed to go through the extract of minutes of the Scrutiny Committee and to submit representation with supporting documents, if any, to the Commissions’ Secretariat within 19.10.2022 (5.30 pm). In the said notification, it was further clarified that in regard to Teaching/Post-Doctoral Experience (2 marks for 1 year each), candidates intending to claim such experience will have to submit documents strictly in conformity with the Clause-10.0 (Para ‘a’ to ‘f’ as the case may be) of the UGC Regulations, 2018. Failing which his/her Teaching/Post Doctoral Experience will not be counted. Along with the said notification, minutes of the Scrutiny Committee, regarding Academic Performance Indicator (API) Score/Academic Record/Research Performance of the candidates, in different subjects, were given. It appears that in the subject of Physical Education, in total 29 candidates including the appellant, applied for the said post and also in the said notification, appellants API application ID No.08/2022/0071 has been shown as 73.00. As per the notification maximum 5 candidates for each post notified will be called for interview out of short listed candidates. As a result thereof, the appellant will not be called for interview because there are 5 candidates whose API score are above that of the appellant. On 13.10.2022, the TPSC has published list of provisional eligible candidates for interview for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor, Government (General) Degree Colleges, vide Advertisement No.08/2022. In the said list, the appellant’s name did not figure. According to the appellant, the Scrutiny Committee has failed to properly assess the appellant’s Academic Performance and as a result thereof, the appellant has been deprived of correct and proper API score. The appellant submitted a representation on 19.10.2022 to the Secretary, TPSC, ventilating his grievances against the erroneously computed API score and for necessary correction of API score. In his representation dated 19.10.2022, the appellant submitted that his teaching experience has not been taken into consideration in course of finalization of API Score/Academic Record and Research Performance.

Finding no way, the appellant preferred the writ petition before the High Court which was numbered as WP(C)No.906 of 2022 before the Hon’ble High Court with the following reliefs : “i. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to compute afresh the API score of the Petitioner after taking into account Teaching Experience & Award of the Petitioner, by giving & adding 10 marks & 2 marks (in total 12 marks) respectively to the Petitioner. ii. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby quashing & cancelling the minutes of the Scrutiny Committee, constituted by the TPSC, for the subject of Physical Education in pursuance with the Advertisement No.08/2022, so far the API score of the Petitioner is concerned & to compute the API score of the Petitioner after taking into account Teaching Experience & Award of the Petitioner & thereafter to include the name of the Petitioner in the list of shortlisted candidates for the post of Assistant Professor (UR), Govt. General Degree College) in Physical Education.”

#8. Thereafter, after hearing both the sides, this High Court after considering submissions of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 vide order dated 07.11.2022 passed in WP(C)No.906 of 2022 allowed the writ petition. The operative portion of the order runs as follows : “Mr. Datta, learned counsel after perusing those salary certificates has fairly submitted that the marks against API, i.e. 10 marks should be included with the total marks awarded by Scrutiny Committee, that is, which, if added, would be 83 instead of 73. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. It is directed that the TPSC shall add 10 marks as API score of the petitioner and short-list him so that he can appear in the selection process. It is also directed that TPSC would take interview of the petitioner.”

#9. It was further submitted that this High Court in the aforesaid order mandated the respondents TPSC that the TPSC shall add 10 marks as API score of the appellant and short-list his him so that he can appear in the selection process. It was also mandated that the TPSC would take interview of the appellant. The appellant vide letter dated

21.11.2022 forwarded a copy of the order dated 07.11.2022 passed in WP(C)No.906 of 2022 to the Office of respondent TPSC, for compliance of the aforesaid order but the respondent did not take any step. Thereafter, the appellant filed contempt petition vide Cont.(C)No.05 of

#2023. This High Court vide order dated 08.02.2023 disposed of the contempt case as during pendency of the contempt case, the respondent TPSC took the interview of the appellant. After that, the Controller of Examination, TPSC issued Provisional Admission Certificate in favour of the appellant asking him to appear before the Interview Board. By the said Certificate, the appellant was informed that in pursuance with the order dated 07.11.2022, passed by the Hon’ble High Court WP(C)No.906 of 2022 interview/personal test for recruitment to the Post of Assistant Professor, Group-A (Gazetted), Government (General) Degree Colleges vide Advertisement No.08/2022 which will be held on

28.01.2023 appellant was appear interview/personality test, by reporting at 9.30 am of 28.01.2023. Thereafter, the Secretary, TPSC vide impugned notification dated

20.03.2023 recommended the name of Aditya Kumar Das i.e. the respondent No.5 for the post of Physical Education under UR category. From the said notification, it appears that total marks of the respondent No.5 was 81.85. It was further mentioned that total marks included API score 85% plus PI score 15%. Both are in weightage, i.e. in relative but not in absolute marks in terms of notification dated 05.03.2018.

#10. As per minutes of the Scrutiny Committee regarding provisional API score, academic score, research performance of the candidate in connection with the recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor, Government (General) Degree Colleges vide Advertisement No.08/2022 the appellants API score was shown as 73.00. The appellant was not satisfied with the API score. As the appellant was deprived of 10 marks due to non counting of 10 marks for his teaching experience, the appellant filed WP(C)No.906 of 2022 and the Hon’ble High Court by order dated 07.11.2022, allowed the writ petition after holding that the appellant is entitled to adding of 10 marks as API score of 73 for his teaching experience. According to him, the total marks is higher than the respondent No.5 but the respondent No.5 has been recommended for the post of Assistant Professor, Government (General) Degree Colleges vide Advertisement No.08/202 depriving the appellant of being recommended of appointment to the said post.

#11. It was further submitted the appellant’s API after adding 10 marks in terms of the order of the High Court in connection with Case No.WP(C)906 of 2022 is higher than the respondent No.5. Moreover, the appellant also score better in the personal interview and got higher marks than the respondent No.5. But most arbitrarily, his name was not recommended by the respondent TPSC. So, again he filed WP(C)No.190 of 2023 challenging the recommendation made by TPSC vide notification dated 20.03.2023 recommending the name of respondent No.5 for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Government (General) Degree Colleges in pursuance of the Advertisement No.08/2022. In the said case, the TPSC contested and Learned counsel for the TPSC placed the overall merit list of the candidates which is as follows : Sl. No. Name of Candidate Father‟s Name Category Roll No. API 85% of API Score

#4. Dr. Aditya Kumar Das Sandip Saha Jitendra Singh Lt. Sukumar Das Subhash Chandra Saha Kali Prasad Singh Mohammad Gulam Sabir Mohamm Mustafa UR UR UR UR

#5. Manas Das Dhirendra SC Kumar Das Sri Nitai Lal Sarkar SC

#6. Praloy Kanti Sarkar

#7. Tipu Sarkar Arun SC

#9. Becon Debbarma Sanjoy Sarkar Sarkar Uttam Kumar Debbarm a Harendra Chandra Sarkar

#10. Lalhmangai hsanga Sailo Biakchun gnunga Sailo ST SC ST

#11. Baris Riang Bhushan ST

#12. Parimal Debbarma Riang Late Mangal Debbarm a ST

#81. 00

#83. 00

#83. 00

#81. 00

#70. 00

#57. 00

#56. 00

#50. 00

#54. 00

#50. 00

#56. 00

#50. 00 PHY_ EDU_ 0822 01 PHY_ EDU_ 0822 15 PHY_ EDU_ 0822 04 PHY_ EDU_ 0822 07 PHY_ EDU_ 0822 06 PHY_ EDU_ 0822 10 PHY_ EDU_ 0822 14 PHY_ EDU_ 0822 03 PHY_ EDU_ 0822 12 PHY_ EDU_ 0822 05 PHY_ EDU_ 0822 02 PHY_ EDU_ 0822 08 Marks obtained Interview (Out of 15) 13 Total Marks obtained (Out of 100)

81.85

68.85

70.55 10

80.55 Remarks/ Age Recomme Wait List 38-07-24

70.55 10

80.55 32-09-29

68.55 9

77.85

70.00 7

66.50 Recomme

57.00 12

60.45 Wait List

56.00 11

58.60

50.00 14

56.50 Recomme

54.00 10

55.90

50.00 13

55.50 Wait List

56.00 7

54.60

42.50 7

49.50

#12. Finally, after hearing both the sides, Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant-petitioner. The operative portion of the order of the Learned Single Judge runs as follows : “12. In the light of aforesaid settled principles discussed Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra), if the present case is considered, then, it comes to light that the petitioner herein neither has alleged any bias or favouritism or mala fide against the members of the Selection Committee nor has alleged any material irregularity in the constitution of the Selection Committee. 13. This Court does not find any procedural defects in the methodology adopted by the Selection Committee in selecting the best candidate i.e. respondent no.5 in the post of Assistant Professor (Physical Education). The Selection Committee recommended the name of respondent no.5 as he obtained marks then that of the petitioner. 14. In the light of above observation and discussions, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.”

#13. Challenging that, the present appellant has preferred this appeal. The TPSC also contested this case by filing the counter-affidavit on 31.08.2023. In paras-5 to 8 of the said counter-affidavit, the TPSC submitted as under : “5. That with reference to the statements made in paragraph No.1(D) & 1(E) of the writ appeal, the answering respondents states that in the Paragraph No.4 & 5 of the Annexure-B of the Advertisement dated 24.03.2022 clearly states as follows:- Selection Procedure for the post of Assistant Professor in Government(General) Degree Colleges, as per latest UGC Regulation. “4. As per State’s New Recruitment policy vide Notification No.F.20(1)-GA(P7T)?18 dated 05.06.2018, maximum of 10% weightage of total marks may be allocated for the Interview/Personality Test for selection purpose. Accordingly 10 marks for Interview/Personality Test is fixed for the post of Asstt. Professor, Govt. (General) Degree Colleges. 5. Merit list will be formed by TPSC aggregating the 90% of marks obtained by the candidate as per API score and Interview marks scored by the candidate and following other instruction in the latest guideline.” So, as paragraph No.4 & 5 of Annexure-B of the Advt. No.08/2022 dated 24.03.2022, maximum of 10% weightage of total marks for Interview/Personality Test was fixed for the post of Asstt. Professor, Govt. (General) Degree Colleges. Therefore, 10% is equal to 10 marks and Merit list would be formed by TPSC aggregating the 90% of mars obtained by the candidate as per API score and Interview marks scored by the candidate i.e. 90+10=100. Thereafter the Tripura Public Service Commission published a Corrigendum on 12.04.2022 in connection with Advt.No.08/2022 dated 24.03.2022 and stated as follows:- “Please read as per State’s New Recruitment Policy vide Notification No.F.1(435)-DHE/Estt(G)/2019/266(4) dated 16.01.2021, maximum of 15% weightage of total marks may be allocated for the Interview/Personality Test for selection purpose in Sl. No.4 (Annexure-B). Other terms and condition will remain unchanged.” As per Corrigendum dated 12.04.2022, the Tripura Public Service Commission only modified 15% instead of 10% of total marks for the Interview/Personality Test. So, here 15% is equal to 15 marks. Subsequently, the Tripura Public Service Commission published another Corrigendum on 13.10.2022 in connection with Advt. No.08/2022 dated 24.03.2022 and stated as follows:- “Screening API score followed by selection process of Interview with a weightage of 15% and API score weightage of 85% in adherence of Now Recruitment polity, 2018 and further modification in 2020 and UGC regulation, 2018”. As per Corrigendum dated 13.10.2022, the Tripura Public Service Commission modified 85% of marks obtained by the candidate as per API score and Interview marks scored by the candidate as per API score and Interview marks scored by the candidate i.e. 85+15=100. A copy of the Annexure-B of the Advertisement dated 24.03.2022, copy of the Corrigendum dated 12.04.2022 and copy of the Corrigendum dated 13.10.2022 are annexed hereto and those are respectively marked as Annexure-R/1, R/2 & R/3.

#6. That with reference to the statements made in paragraphs No.1(T) to 1(X) of the writ appeal, the answering respondents denies that the appellant‟s total marks would be higher than the respondent No.5 or that the respondent No.5 has been recommended for the post of Assistant Professor, Govt.(General) Degree Colleges, vide Advertisement No.08/2022, depriving the appellant of being recommended for appointment in the said post. The answering respondents further denies that the Appellant‟s API after adding 10 marks in terms of the Order of the Hon‟ble High Court in WP(C) 906 of 2022 is higher than the respondent No.5 or that most illegally & arbitrarily the appellant was not recommended by the Respondent-TPSC. The answering respondents state that after completion of interview, the Tripura Public Service Commission prepared the Merit list b aggregating the 85% of marks obtained by the candidate as per API score and Interview marks scored by the candidate i.e. 85+15=100. The marks of the Respondent No.5 and the Appellant are as follows:- Name Roll No Respondent No.5 Appellant PHY_EDU- 082201 PHY_EDU- 082215 Total API Score 80% of API Score Marks obtained Interview(out of 15)

81.00 68.85 13 Total obtained (out 100) 81.85

83.00 70.55 10

80.55 Remarks Recommende d Wait List The above-mentioned table was also reflected in paragraph No.6 of the impugned Judgment & Order (Oral) dated 03.04.2023 in WP(C) 190 of 2013 by the Hon‟ble High Court. The answering respondents further state that out of 100 marks, the respondent No.5 obtained higher marks than that of the appellant and as such the name of the respondent No.5 had been recommended by the Tripura Public Service Commission and the name of the appellant was placed as a wait list candidate.

#7. That the answering respondents state that out of total 100 marks 85 percent i.e. 85 marks are meant for awarding API score and the balance 15 percent i.e. 15 marks out of 100 is kept for interview. The API score of respondent no.5 is 81.00. Thereafter, 85% of total API score of 81.00 obtained by respondent no.5 is taken into account and it comes to 68.85. Moreover, the respondent No.5 obtained 13 marks in interview out of 15 marks and in total he obtained 81.85 marks. The API score of the Appellant is 83.00. Accordingly, 85% of the API score, is taken into account then, it comes to 70.55. But, the appellant obtained 10 marks in interview out of 15 marks and in total he obtained 80.55(70.55+10). Since, in total, the Respondent no.5 obtained higher marks (81.85) than that of the appellant, the name of respondent No.5 has been recommended by the Tripura Public Service Commission and the name of the appellant is placed as wait list candidate at Serial No.2.

#8. That the answering respondents humbly states that clause-4 of Annexure-B with Annexure-A lays down the criteria for short- listing of candidates for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in colleges. Out of 100 marks, 85% marks is allotted to API score and 15 is left to personal interview. A combined reading of the Corrigendum dated 12.04.2022 and 13.10.2022 along with Annexure-B and A which are read with the terms of the advertisement No.08/2022 makes it evident that while out of total marks, 15 marks are allotted to interview while in computing the API score out of total marks obtained under the API category 85% weightage is only to be given. This formula has been devised by the Education (Higher) Department as per the State‟s New Recruitment Policy vide notification dated 05.06.2018 and followed by the TPSC as per its Corrigendum dated 13.10.2022 with the only difference that the interview marks would be 15 instead of 10. The answering respondent further states that laying down of a formula for recruitment process lies in the domain of the administrative body or experts such as, the Tripura Public Service Commission and in the present case the application of the formula has been made in a non-discriminatory transparent manner to all the candidates. Moreover, Table 3B in itself indicates that weightage has been given on several categories such as, of the academic record for that academic scores awarded by different the reason Examination Boards and Universities cannot be said to be standardized across the country. It is the experience that some Examination Boards or Universities award higher percentage of marks to its students while some are more conservative in evaluation of papers. As such, in a criteria for evaluation by the Tripura Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor, Professor, Associate Professor in different colleges under the State, the Government Department and TPSC have consciously chosen to give a weightage criteria to the total API marks in such recruitment exercise which is 15 in this case, the whole purpose of personal interview would be defeated as 15% of even 15 marks could at best be 2.25. The answering respondents also states that on a construction of the terms of the advertisement, Table 3B at Annexure-A, the Corrigendum dated 12.04.2023 read with 13.10.2022, the formula devised by the Education (Higher) Department and the TPSC for evaluation of the API score, 85% of weightage is to be given whereas the marks scored in the personal interview has to be added in absolute terms. The above-mentioned formula adopted by the Tripura Public Service Commission has been approved by this Hon‟ble High Court by a Judgment & Order dated 04.08.2023 passed in WP(C) 966 of 2022”Dr. Sandeep Roy Sarkar Vs. The State of Tripura”.

#14. Finally, the TPSC prayed for dismissal of the appeal and urged for upholding the order of the Learned Single Judge.

#15. In course of hearing of argument, Mr. P. Roy Barman, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Learned Single Judge could not appreciate the subject matter of dispute properly as because regarding 85% of API score, the appellant has got no dispute but in respect of interview, the Selection Committee did not follow the prescribed rule made by TPSC for which the interference of this Court is required. He has also relied upon Annexure-A i.e. the criteria for short listing of candidates for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in Colleges and also the corrigendum dated 13.10.2022 issued by TPSC (Annexure-2) and submitted that the Selection Committee of TPSC did not adhere the rule framed by the TPSC itself and there action was contrary to their policy for which the present appellant inspite of having requisite marks was not selected for the post he applied for, rather, inspite of obtaining lesser marks, the respondent No.5 was selected by the Selection Committee of the TPSC most illegally but the Learned Single Judge did not consider the same rather came to an observation that there was no any procedural defects in the methodology adopted by the Selection Committee and urged for allowing this appeal.

#16. Per contra, Mr. Raju Datta, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the TPSC-respondents submitted that the Selection Committee of TPSC has rightly selected the respondent No.5 after observing all formalities and there was no procedural defects. So, Learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the petition filed by the present appellant.

#17. In course of hearing of argument, Mr. Datta, Learned Counsel has referred the Selection Procedure for the post of Assistant Professor in Government (General) Degree Colleges, as per latest UGC Regulation wherein it is prescribed that : “ANNEXURE-B Selection Procedure for the post of Assistant Professor in Government (General) Degree Colleges, as per latest UGC Regulation:

#1. The overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on the weightage given to the performance of the different relevant parameters and his/her performance on a grading system proforma, based on Appendix-II, Table 3B of the UGC Regulation, 2018 as amended.

#2. The Academic score as specified in Annexure-II, Table 3B for Colleges, shall be considered for short-listing of the candidates (Maximum 5 candidates for each post notified) for interview.

#3. TPSC shall constitute Selection Committee and fix qualifying cut off mark (if any) for interview as per UGC Guideline 2018 as amended time to time.

#4. As per State’s New Recruitment Policy vide Notification No.F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18 dated 05-06-2018, maximum of 10% weightage of total marks may be allocated for the for selection purpose. Interview/ Personality Test Accordingly 10 marks for Interview/Personality test is fixed for the post of Asstt. Professor, Government (General) Degree Colleges.

#5. Merit list will be formed by TPSC aggregating the 90% of marks obtained by the candidate as per API score and interview Page 7 of 17 marks scored by the candidate and following other instruction in the latest guideline.

#6. Five members, including three subject experts, shall constitute the quorum of the Selection Committee.”

#18. During the course of submission, Mr. Datta, Learned Counsel has referred the corrigendum dated 13.10.2022 issued by the TPSC which reads as under : CORRIGENDUM Ref: Commission’s Advt. No.08/2022 dated 24.03.22 for the post of Assistant Professor, Group-A Gazetted, Govt. (General) Degree Colleges under the Education (Higher) Department, Govt. of Tripura. [ In pursuance of the notification dated No.F.1(435)- DHE/Estt/ (G)/2019/226(04) dated 16-01-2021 the Commission is pleased to issue corrigendum at para 5 of Annexure ’A’ as Screening API score followed by selection process of interview with a weightage of 15% and API score weightage of 85% in adherence of New Recruitment Policy, 2018 and further modification in 2020 and UGC regulation, 2018. (enclo Notification). Others terms and conditions will remain unchanged. information For further please www.tpsc.tripura.gov.in. Sd/- (13.10.2022) (Smt. K. Debbarma) Under Secretary Tripura Public Service Commission

#19. Further, he has referred the notification dated 16.01.2021 issued by the Government of Tripura, Education (Higher) Department which provides as under : NOTIFICATION The Recruitment Rule for the post of Assistant Professor, Government (General) Degree Colleges has been notified vide No.F.1(435)-DHE/Estt(G)/2019 dated 27.08.2020. In partial modification of the said Notification issued by this Department it is hereby notified that in the Point no.5 i.e. Method of recruitments whether by direct recruits or by promotion or by deputation/transfer and percentage of the vacancies to be filled by various method appeared in the Schedule of the Recruitment Rules of the said notification, the following shall be substituted in place of the existing. "100% by direct recruitment through TPSC. Screening API score followed by selection process of interview with a weightage of 15% and API score weightage of 85% in adherence of New Recruitment Policy, 2018 and further modification in 2020 and UGC Regulation, 2018. Selection process is enclosed as Annexure-A". This is issued with the concurrence of GA(P&T) Department vide their U.O. No.190/GA(P&T)/21 dated 13.01.2021. Rest of the contents of the said Notification and Schedule shall remain unchanged. By order and in the name of the Governor Sd/-(16.01.2021) Secretary Joint Government of Tripura Education (Higher) Department.

#20. According to Mr. Datta, Learned Counsel, the weightage of 15% as mentioned in the notification may create some confusion but actually, it should be 15 but the appellant-petitioner came to an observation that that should be 15% and referring the merit list as stated above, he further submitted that after tabulation it appeared that the respondent No.5 secured more marks than the present appellant- petitioner, so his name was recommended by the Selection Committee and the appellant-petitioner secured lesser marks for which his case was not recommended for selection and there was no ambiguity to that. Finally, he has urged before this Court for upholding the judgment of the Learned Single Judge.

#21. Here in this case, after hearing submission of both the parties, it appears as to whether the notification as relied upon by the parties if read together would mean granting weightage of 85% to API score and 15% in personal interview or not. The answer in this regard lies in Clause-IV of Annexure-B wherein it is stated that the criteria for short listing of candidates for interview to the post of Assistant Professor in Colleges. Out of 100 marks, 85% marks is allotted to API score and 15% is left for personal interview. If we read the notification dated

16.01.2021 and 13.10.2021 along with Annexure-B it appears that there would not be any doubt regarding allotting of 15 marks for interview while in computing the API score out of total marks obtained under API category, 85% weightage is only to be given. This formula has been revised by the Education Department as per the States New Recruitment policy vide notification dated 05.06.2018 followed by TPSC corrigendum dated 13.10.2022 with the only difference that the interview marks would only be 15 instead of 10 which has been also mentioned by the TPSC in their counter affidavit. Furthermore, the formula for selection lies within the domain of the administrative body or experts such as TPSC. The Court does not have the jurisdiction to substitute a formula devised by such an expert body to its own. Further, in para Nos.5, 6, 7 & 8 the above submission has been clearly explained by TPSC. It was further submitted that there was no malafides to that.

#22. In order to support his case, Mr. Datta, Learned Counsel has referred some citations which reads as under : In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others versus Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others reported in (1990) 1 SCC 305 the Hon’ble apex Court in para-12 of that judgment has observed as under : “12. It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the Court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasize that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the Candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the Constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction.” In M.V. Thimmaiah and Others versus Union Public Service Commission and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 119 the Hon’ble apex Court in para-21 of that judgment has observed as under : “21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory Rules. The Courts cannot sit as an appellate authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the Court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and Courts rarely sit in court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the Court to examine each candidate and record its opinion. In this connection, learned senior counsel for the appellants has taken us through various following decisions of this Court : (i) Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. : AIR 2003 SC 3044 (ii) P.M.Bayas V. Union of India & Ors. : (1993) 3 SCC 319 (iii) Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Ors. Etc. : (1985) 4 SCC 417 (iv) Ajay Hasia & Ors. V. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. : (1981) 1 SCC 722 (v) Union Public Service Commission v. S.Thiagarajan & Ors. : (2007)9 SCC 548 Mr. P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents invited our attention to the following decisions of this Court.