Recruitment: Fresh notification after the interviews are over
A University notified for the recruitment of teaching posts (Professors, associate professors and assistant Professors) in Jun 2016. I applied for a post. They called for interview in Dec 2016. But they cancelled it a day before the date of interview, as the notifications validity was only 6 months and soon it was coming to lapse. University renotifed for the same posts in Dec 2016 and in advt mentioned "who applied in response to earlier notification need not apply again." This time, they conducted interviews in Feb 2017 for about 10 posts out of 90; Govt intervened to stop the process as some amendments were in pipeline for the recruitment procedures. I had attended the interview and had bright chances of selection as my interview performance was good. They did not announce the interview results ; but, I kept requesting the university for my results. To our shock, University has now given a "fresh notification" for the same posts. Now, they have changed the recruitment procedure, written test is included, and a whole lots of changes are made! "the rules of the game have been changed when the game is over in our case". In advt "Candidates who had applied earlier need not apply once again. BUT they will have to submit relevant information and details in the revised format. However they need not pay the application fees if it has been already paid along with earlier application form. Any/new certificates for fresh claim have to be submitted."
Myself and others, who have completed interview process want the university to give appointment orders based on our interview results. I am eager to know what Kanoon says about this case. Thank you in advance for your help.
Asked 8 years ago in Civil Law
Thanks for your answers. So many varied opinions! It's very interesting.
Now, in the ‘fresh notification’ eligibility criteria have changed. University has made new statutes with the directions of the state govt for the recruitment.
(i) ‘Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills’ of the candidates will be evaluated through a written test for all teaching posts i.e. Asst prof, asso prof and also for Professor post. This procedure did not exist in earlier recruitments.
(ii) UGC API score system has been modified, assigning low weightages for publications (2 or 1 Marks per paper whereas it is 10-25 marks per paper in UGC API); hence, reaching the expected 300 to 400 API target would be an uphill task.
(iii) They have added new criteria over and above ‘UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) (4th Amendment), Regulations, 2016’. That is, "One Orientation and one Refresher/ research methodology Course of minimum 3 weeks". As per UGC, this requirement is applicable only in the promotion of university teachers, that too, Assistant Professor cadres from Stage 1 to 2 and 2 to 3, through career advancement scheme (CAS) for in-service teachers. But, now, this university has added this as a ‘minimum qualification’ for ‘Direct recruitment’ of Asso Prof and professors. Now, look what happens; though this appears like a small addendum, many deserving candidates will be edged out; University has depts that teach technology subjects. Hence, those candidates, with significant research contributions, from technical institutions, industries and foreign universities will not get a place in the university, just because they did not attend a 3 week refresher course. Obviously, Only the in-service teachers of university system will be favoured by this rule.
Are these new statutes in consonance with UGC criteria? Is there no requirement of getting university statues approved by UGC? Can the candidates who applied for previous two notifications get a relief through legal procedures? Can the candidates, who completed interviews (as stated in the main question above) claim for their accrued rights and insist on unamended rules? Experts,Plz through light on this case. Thanks.
Asked 8 years ago
