Assistant Prof Appointment | Teaching Experience & Research Aptitude Relevant Only For Shortlisting Candidates; Selection To Be Based On Interview: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court recently set aside an order issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University in October 2021 for appointment of assistant professors, insofar as it relates to teaching and research aptitude as interview selection criteria.

A division bench consisting of Justice P.S Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that the University Order is contrary to 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, 2018.

The scheme of the Regulations is that as far as the post of Assistant Professor is concerned, teaching experience and research publications shall not be the basis of the selection, and the same shall only be the basis of short-listing the candidates. It further provides that final selection shall be based on the performance of the candidate in the interview.

...University Order, to the extent it provides for assessment of teaching ability and research aptitude based on pre-determined criteria, is contrary to the Regulations.

The matter which came before the Court relates to the selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi in the colleges under the fourth respondent affiliated to MG University.

The Writ Appeal was preferred challenging the University Order as also the selection and appointment of the eighth respondent.

Arguments

The case set out by the petitioner in the Appeal was that the requirements contained in the Regulations are mandatory insofar as it provide for: (i) selection solely based on the performance of the candidates in the interview; (ii) the parameters for awarding marks for the interview shall not be predetermined.

It was argued that the parameters prescribed by the University in terms of the impugned Order insofar as it relate to teaching aptitude and research aptitude are all predetermined and to that extent, the University Order and the selection and appointment of the eighth respondent are bad.

It was also the case of the petitioner that the University  Order should not have been the basis for the selection as the same was one issued after the commencement of the selection process, and therefore the selection should have been conducted, keeping the maximum marks to be awarded for the interview as 20.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner, Advocates Jacob P. Alex, Joseph P Alex, Manu Sankar P, and Amal Amir Ali, contended that the University Order is not in conformity with the requirements in the Regulations as the scheme of the Regulations stipulated that the parameters included in Table 3B of Appendix II are only for short-listing the candidates for the interview and the selection shall be solely based on the performance of the candidates in the interview and the instructions in the Order would defeat the very purpose of the interview as it provided that 30 marks out of the 50 marks for the interview be awarded on pre-determined criteria.

Furthermore, it was also contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that in terms of the University Order issued prior to the date of selection, only 20 marks were directed to be awarded for the interview, and the same was changed after the commencement of the selection process to 50 marks to the prejudice of the candidates. It was submitted that the rules of the game cannot be altered after the commencement of the game.

The Standing Counsel for the University, relying on the Apex Court decisions in the cases of University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Thariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University, contended that the prescription of criteria for awarding marks in an interview for selection for appointment to teaching posts is purely an academic matter and the courts should respect the decisions taken by the academicians and experts in the field. 

Findings

The original writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in the admission stage, stating that the petitioner had not challenged the University Order before participating in the selection process.

However, in appeal, this Court observed that it was not obligatory for the petitioner to challenge the University Order before participating in the interview as the case of the petitioner was that she had not been informed that the interview would be in accordance with the Order. 

The Court agreed with the Petitioner's counsel that rules of the game cannot be changed mid-way. It observed that the said principle is evolved based on the doctrine of equality adumbrated in the Constitutional scheme. However, it added that this rule will not have any application in cases where none of the rights is affected on account of procedure.

Since the petitioner in this case did not contend that any prejudice was caused to her on account of the said change and if at all there was any prejudice, all participants in the selection process would have been subjected to the same prejudice, therefore, the Court held that the petitioner cannot contend that there is an infringement of any of her rights.

Moving further, the Court pointed out that the University is one which is receiving grants from UGC and as such, the selection impugned in the Writ Petition must have been conducted in accordance with the provisions contained in the UGC Regulations.

Siding with the contention raised by the Petitioner, the Court observed that the performance of a candidate in an interview is fundamentally different from assessing him/her based on pre-determined criteria.

The reason being that while a written examination assesses the knowledge of the candidate and his intellectual ability, a viva voce test seeks to assess his overall intellectual and personal qualities. While written examination has certain distinct advantages over the viva voce test, there is yet no written test which can evaluate a candidate's initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, co-operativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in the discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decisions, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity etc.

After perusing the University Order, the Court observed that the maximum marks provided for teaching aptitude are ten, of which five marks are for teaching experience and five marks for proficiency in Information, and Communication Technology enabled teaching practices which means that if a candidate has two e-content modules to his credit, he is bound to be awarded the maximum marks. Out of ten marks earmarked for assessing the teaching aptitude, a candidate need not have to perform in the interview, and even if a candidate is able to demonstrate that he has a better teaching aptitude when compared to other candidates participating in the selection, no marks can be awarded to him on that ground.

Furthermore, a candidate who has the requisite number of publications is sure to get the maximum marks in order to be assessed. The Court pointed out that here again, there is absolutely no role in the performance of the candidates, and even if a candidate is able to demonstrate that he has a better research aptitude when compared to the other candidates participating in the selection, there is no provision in University Order for awarding marks to him on that ground.

In other words, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, ten marks out of 50 earmarked for assessing the teaching aptitude of the candidates and 20 marks out of 50 earmarked for assessing the research aptitude of the candidates are directed to be given solely based on the experience of the candidates and the publications made by them, and not based on their performance in the interview.

The scheme of the Regulations makes it clear that as far as the post of Assistant Professor is concerned, teaching experience and research publications shall not be the basis of the selection, and the same shall only be the basis of short-listing the candidates for selection, and such selection shall be based on the performance of the candidate in the interview, Court held.

However, Clause 6.0 of the Regulations clarifies that in order to make the system more credible, universities may assess the ability for teaching and research aptitude through a seminar or lecture in a classroom situation or discussion on the capacity to use the latest technology in teaching and research at the interview stage. Therefore the Court observed that the contemplation of the Regulations for the purpose of assessing the teaching ability or aptitude as also the research aptitude is; therefore, it shall be assessed at the stage of interview through a seminar or lecturer in a classroom situation or discussion on the capacity to use the latest technology in teaching and research.

The Court, therefore, held that the University Order to the extent it provides for the assessment of teaching ability and research aptitude based on pre-determined criteria, is contrary to the UGC Regulations, as the scheme of the Regulations is that as far as the post of Assistant Professor is concerned, teaching experience and research publications shall not be the basis of the selection, and the same shall only be the basis of short-listing the candidates for selection, and such selection shall be based on the performance of the candidate in the interview.

..we are of the view that assessment of teaching ability and the research aptitude based on pre-determined criteria is not permissible in terms of the Regulations, that too, by adopting some of the parameters made mention of in Table 3B of Appendix II to the Regulations.

Thereby, the Court allowed the Petition directing the 2nd respondent University to formulate norms for awarding marks for interview for selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor having regard to the UGC regulations and the observations made in this case, and the Court also directed for conducting interviews of the candidates who were shortlisted within a month.

Case Title: Dr Smitha Chacko v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 481

Click Here To Read/Download The Order