stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) set out in this Regulation in Table I to IX of Appendix III is followed. As per Appendix-III, Table - 1, the proposed scores for academic performance indicators (APIs) is to be indicated, which is relevant for recruitment and career advancement scheme (CAS) promotions of University/College Teachers. This appendix clearly stipulates that API is relevant to evaluate the teacher's self-assessment. It is also relevant to evaluate the teaching related activity, domain knowledge, participation in examination and evaluation and contribution to innovative teaching, new courses etc., As per Appendix-III, Table -I, the minimum API score required to be possessed by teachers is 75. Further, the self-assessment score should be based on objectively verifiable criteria wherever possible and will be finalised by the screening/selection committee. Further, as per Clause 6.3.2 of the UGC Regulations, a candidate who does not fulfil the minimum score requirement under the API scoring System proposed in the Regulations as per Tables II (a and b) of Appendix III or those who obtain less than 50% in the expert assessment of the selection process will have to be re-assessed only after a minimum period of one year. Thus, evaluation of API is one of the significant factors required to be examined during the process of selection. In the present case, admittedly, in the notification dated 20.04.2018, there is no reference made to clause 4.2.0. (iv) relating to API and it is omitted to be indicated therein even though Clause 4.2.0 (i) to (iii) have been verbatim referred to in the notification dated 20.04.2018. This is pointed out as one of the violations of the UGC regulations by the writ petitioners. Even though it was contended that in the Circular dated 20.04.2018 it was stated that the selection will be based on UGC norms, it is not enough. Thus, the requirement to possess API has not been mentioned in the circular dated 20.04.2018 which is in violation of the UGC Regulations. On this ground alone, the selection process has to be declared invalid. It is settled proposition of law that when the Statute prescribes an act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done only in that manner and not in any other manner. Further, it is brought to our notice that during the selection process, the applicants have submitted their applications along with enclosures containing 200 to 300 pages, but it is really surprising as to whether those enclosures of the candidates have been scrutinised and evaluated within a short span of time. Therefore, we are of the view that even the interview conducted by the selection committee lacks transparency. Further, the Interim Administrator, in his counter affidavit has stated that the members in the selection committee have signed blank mark sheets to enable the authorities to award the marks at their
