Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Smt. Deepali (Surana) vs Higher Education Department on 28 April, 2016
1
WP No.2305/2016
28/04/2016
Shri Suresh K.P.S, learned counsel for petitioners in
WP No.2305/2016, Shri Arpit Oswal, learned counsel for
petitioner in WP No.2495/2016, 3132/2016, 3133/2016 and
3134/2016, Shri Jai Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner
in WP No.2761/2016, Ms.Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned
counsel for petitioner in WP No.2830/2016 and WP
No.2911/2016, Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for
petitioner in WP No.2856/2016, 2857/2016 and WP
No.3043/2016, Shri Manoj Shrivastava, learned counsel for
petitioner in WP No.2876/2016, Shri C.B.Patne, learned
counsel for petitioner in WP No.2946/2016, 2948/2016 and
WP No.3028/2016.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Shri V.P. Khare, learned counsel for the respondent/MPPSC.
This order will govern the disposal of WP No.2305/2016, 2495/2016, 2761/2016, 2830/2016, 2856/2016,2857/2016, 2876/2016, 2911/2016, 2946/2016, 2948/2016, 3028/2016, 3043/2016, 3132/2016, 3133/2016 and WP No. 3134/2016. It is submitted by learned counsel 2 for parties that all these writ petitions involve the same issue. Hence, they are being decided by this common order.
For convenience, the facts have been noted from WP No.2305/2016.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking permission to participate in the selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor conducted by the respondent MPPSC.
The grievance of the petitioners is in respect of the condition which has been prescribed in the advertisement issued by the MPPSC about the NET/SLET/SET qualification for those who have not obtained the Ph.D degree in terms of the UGC Regulations, 2009.
The petitioners have not obtained the Ph.D degree in terms of the UGC Regulations, 2009, therefore, they have approached this court by way of the present writ petitions.
The controversy involved in the present case has already been examined by the division bench in the Principal Seat in WP No.7064/2016 and following the said judgment the identical Writ Petition No.6385/2016(s) has been dismissed vide order dated 27/4/2016. The division bench in WP No.6385/2016 has held as under:-
"Heard counsel for the parties on 3 admission.
The relief claimed in this petition is to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to participate in the selection process commenced on the basis of advertisement inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor. Notably, in the petition averment is made that petitioner is postgraduate in subject History. He has also obtained M.Phil degree in the year 2008-2009. In para 5.3 of the petitioner it is, however, admitted that petitioner was registered for Ph.D in subject History on 27.07.2009 prior to enforcement of Regulations, 2009. The fact remains that petitioner has ndot been awarded Ph.D degree in accordance with the Regulations, 2009, which alone is exempted in terms of Regulation 4.4.1 of the Regulations of 2010. This issue has been considered by us in WP No.7064/2016 and answered against the writ petitioner. That decision has been followed in subsequent petitions involving the same contention.
The fact that petitioner possesses post-graduation degree in subject History, by itself, is not sufficient. In addition to Master's degree in the relevant subject, the candidate must also possess qualification of NET/SET/SLET. The petitioner does not possess the latter qualification. Hence, the petitioner having been found to be ineligible and declined participation in the ensuing selection process, no fault can be found with the Authority in that behalf. Hence, dismissed.
Interim relief, if any, is vacated 4 forthwith."
The issue which the petitioners is raising before this court is no longer res-integra and Supreme Court has already examined the issue in the matter of P. Suseela and others Vs. University Grants Commission and others reported in AIR 2015 SC 1976 and has held that the prescription of the NET/SLET/SET as minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of lecturers in the universities/colleges/institutions cannot be held to be bad. The Supreme Court in the said judgment in para 5 has noted the third amendment in the UGC Regulations 2009 which reads as under:
"NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/institutions.
Provided however that candidates who are or have been awarded Ph.D. Degree in compliance of the "University Grants Commission (minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D Degree) Regulation 2009 shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent position in Universities/Colleges/Institutions."
The Supreme Court has also noted para 3.3.1 of 5 Regulation 2010 in para 7 of the judgment which reads as under:
"3.3.1. NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointments of Assistant Professors in Universities/Collages/Institutions.
Provided however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations,2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions."
In the advertisement Annex.P-1 the same minimum eligibility condition has been prescribed which is required by third amendment of the Regulations 2009 as also the Regulations of 2010.
The Supreme court in the aforesaid judgment has upheld these regulations by holding as under:
12.It is clear that Section 26 enables the Commission to make regulations only if they are consistent with the UGC Act. This necessarily means that such regulations must conform to Section 20 of the Act and under Section 20 of the Act the Central Government is given the power to give directions on questions of policy relating to 6 national purposes which shall guide the Commission in the discharge of its functions under the Act. It is clear, therefore, that both the directions of 12th November,2008 and 30th March,2010 are directions made pertaining to questions of policy relating to national purposes inasmuch as, being based on the Mungekar Committee Report, the Central Government felt that a common uniform nationwide test should be a minimum eligibility condition for recruitment for the appointment of Lecturer/Assistant Professors in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. This is for the obvious reason that M.Phil. Degrees or Ph.D. Degrees are granted by different Universities/Institutions having differing standards of excellence. It is quite possible to conceive of M.Phil/ Ph.D. Degrees being granted by several Universities which did not have stringent standards of excellence. Considering as a matter of policy that the appointment of Lecturers/Assistant Professors in all institutions governed by the UGC Act (which are institutions all over the country), the need was felt to have in addition a national entrance test as a minimum eligibility condition being an additional qualification which has become necessary in view of wide disparities in the granting of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degrees by various Universities/Institutions. The object sought to be achieved by these directions is clear: that all lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions governed by the UGC Act should have a certain minimum standard of excellence before they are appointed as such. These directions are not only made in exercise of powers under Section 20 of the 7 Act but are made to provide for coordination and determination of standards which lies at the very core of the UGC Act. It is clear, therefore, that any regulation made under Section 26 must conform to directions issued by the Central Government under Section 20 of the Act.
13. It was argued that since the previous approval of the Central Government was not necessary for regulations which define the qualifications required of persons to be appointed to the teaching staff of a University, the Government has no role to play in such matters and cannot dictate to the Commission. This argument does not hold water for the simple reason that it ignores the opening lines of Section 26(1) which states that the Commission can only make regulations consistent with the Act, which brings in the Central Government's power under Section 20 of the Act, a power that is independent of sub-section (2) of Section 26. A regulation may not require the previous approval of the Central Government and may yet have to be in conformity with a direction issued under Section 20 of the Act. In fact, even where a regulation can only be made with the previous approval of the Central Government, the Central Government would have a role to play both before and after the regulation is made. In the first case, it would accord its previous approval to the regulation. Once the regulation becomes law, it may issue directions under Section 20 pursuant to which the very same regulation may have to be modified or done away with to conform to such direction. It is clear, 8 therefore, that Section 26(2) would not stand in the way of the directions issued in the present case by the Central Government to the Commission.
The issue which is raised by petitioners about obtaining the P.hd. Degree prior to coming into force 2009 Regulations has also been examined by the Supreme court and has held that petitioner has no vested right in this regard. It has been held as under:
15. Similar is the case on facts here. A vested right would arise only if any of the appellants before us had actually been appointed to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professors. Till that date, there is no vested right in any of the appellants .
At the highest, the appellants could only contend that they have a right to be considered for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor. This right is always subject to minimum eligibility conditions, and till such time as the appellants are appointed, different conditions may be laid down at different times. Merely because an additional eligibility condition in the form of a NET test is laid down, it does not mean that any vested right of the appellants is affected, nor does it mean that the regulation laying down such minimum eligibility condition would be retrospective in operation. Such condition would only be prospective as it would apply only at the stage of appointment. It is clear, therefore, that the contentions of the private appellants before us must fail.
9The argument based upon Article 14 has also been examined and rejected by the Supreme court by holding as under:
17 The arguments based on Article 14 equally have to be rejected. It is clear that the object of the directions of the Central Government read with the UGC requlations of 2009/2010 are to maintain excellence in standards of higher education. Keeping this object in mind, a minimum eligibility condition of passing the national eligibility test is laid down.
True, there may have been exemptions laid down by the UGC in the past, but the Central Government now as a matter of policy feels that any exemption would compromise the excellence of teaching standards in Universities/Colleges/Institutions governed by the UGC. Obviously, there is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory in this-in fact it is a core function of the UGC to see that such standards do not get diluted.
In view of the above judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of P. Suseela (supra) and the Judgment of Division bench of this court noted above the contention which has been advanced by counsel for petitioners that petitioners should be allowed to appear in the examination without qualifying NET/SLET/SET test though they have not obtained Ph.D. In terms of the UGC Regulations 2009, cannot be 10 accepted.
Hence the writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit which is accordingly dismissed.
The signed order be placed in the record of WP No.2305/2016 and copy whereof be placed in the record of connected writ petitions.
c.c as per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge vm