Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr Devendra Kumar Sharma Ors vs State (Education Department)Ors on 20 September, 2013
Author: Amitava Roy
Bench: Amitava Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17174/2013 Dr. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Judgment :: 20th September, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Mr.G.K. Garg, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anita Aggarwal for the petitioners. Mr.A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.K. Sharma for respondents. <><><> BY THE COURT : (Per Hon'ble Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J.)
The petitioners, in the instant writ application, while challenging the vires of Ordinance 141-D of the University of Rajasthan and University Grants Commission Regulations of 2010 (for short 'the Regulations of 2010'), have also questioned the legality, validity and correctness of the action of the respondent University in not considering their candidature for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in response to advertisement dated 1st November, 2012.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that their exclusion from consideration for having not qualified NET/SLET/SET, as stipulated by the Regulations of 2010, applied with retrospective effect, is contrary to law and mandate of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956', for short) as well as the verdict of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, have approached this Court with the following prayers:-
(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent University be directed to consider the application forms of the petitioners by treating them eligible for the post of Assistant Professor being filled up against the advertisement of 2012.
(ii) By further appropriate writ, order or direction the Ph.D. Degree awarded by the University to the petitioners prior to Regulations of 2009 or for that matter 2010 be considered as exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET.
(iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the UGC Regulations 2010 to the extent of exemption clause and Ordinance No.141 of the University of Rajasthan to the extent of eligibility by not granting exemption from NET/SLET to the petitioner be declared as ultra-vires and quashed and set aside.
(iv) Or nay other appropriate relief may kindly be granted to the petitioners which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) Cost of the litigation may kindly be granted to the petitioners.
3. The facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised in the writ application are that the petitioners are Law Graduates and have been awarded Ph.D. prior to 2009. It is further stated that the petitioners were registered for Ph.D. under old Regulations before the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualification required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teacher in University and Institutions affiliated to it) (3rd Amendment) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as '3rd Amendment Regulations, 2009', for short) and University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'Award of Ph.D. Degree Regulations, 2009', for short).
4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that about 272 teachers had been working on ad-hoc basis, who did not possess the required qualification of NET/SLET/SET and were regularized as per the Act of 2008. Section 26 of the UGC Act of 1956 mandates that the regulations shall be made effective from the date of publication in gazette. The petitioners were eligible for consideration of their candidature on the post of Assistant Professor before July 2009 in view of 3rd Amendment Regulations, 2009. It is also pointed out that Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur; Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Jaipur; M.D.S. University, Rohtak, Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University; University of Pune; Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathawada University; Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwabvidyalaya, Sagar (M.P.) and University of Rajasthan (Respondent No.4), have been granting exemption from the requirement of qualification of NET/SLET/SET. However, the University of Rajasthan (Respondent No.4) vide notification dated 17th October, 2012 brought an amendment in the Regulations regarding eligibility for the post of Assistant Professor and further the advertisement dated 1st November, 2012 issued by the respondent University, has called upon the candidates who had already applied in response to earlier advertisement, are also required to apply afresh under the UGC's new guidelines and therefore, the petitioners apprehend that their application forms in response to the advertisement are likely to be declined since they are not entitled for exemption from NET for not having acquired their Ph.D. under the Regulations of 2009. Learned counsel has also invited the attention of this Court to the interim order dated 6th September, 2013 passed in SLP (Civil) No.28450 of 2013 (Rachna Katta Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.).
5. The petitioners have pleaded that the all the Ph.D. holders were exempted from NET/SLET, but in the UGC Regulations, 2010 and Ordinance, 2012, they have not been exempted and therefore, have challenged the framing of Ordinance dated 17.10.2012, in the light of the UGC Regulations, 2010. However, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while examining somewhat identical controversy repelled the challenge to the vires of UGC Amendment Regulations of 2009; UGC (Award of Ph.D.) Regulations, 2009 and University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualification Required for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010, which also inter-alia provided the same rider about the eligibility of candidates for appointment to post of Assistant Professor and exemption as mentioned therein, holding the Regulations intra-vires, against which an SLP is said to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. The University of Rajasthan (Respondent No.4) entered caveat and is being represented by Shri A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. V.K. Sharma.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
8. The issue raised in the instant writ application is no more res-intra in view of a detailed pronouncement by this Court in a bunch of writ applications, lead case being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8582/2011 Ravindra Singh Shekhawat Versus Union of India & Ors., vide judgment and order dated 13th September, 2012 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.
10. The Coordinate Bench of this Court also considered the backdrop of the facts relating to 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 and therefore, it will be gainful to consider the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at while deciding the case of Ravindra Singh Shekhawat (supra) wherein the Coordinate Bench held thus:-
Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions of the parties, it is necessary to consider the backdrop of facts leading to the framing of 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009. The UGC has made the NET examination compulsory for appointment to the post of Teachers and Lecturers in the Universities for the first time by framing the Regulations in 1991 and the Regulations of 1991 were framed on the basis of the recommendations of the Expert Committee appointed by the Union of India; Union of India considering the falling standards and disparity of norms with respect to M.Phil/Ph.D., constituted a Review Committee under the chairmanship of Prof.Bhalchandra Mungekar, which held extensive and intensive deliberations through out the country; Academicians, Scientists and Administrators were of the view that floodgates being opened for registration of M.Phil and Ph.D. degrees resulting into further deterioration of qualities of these degrees and consequently, making easy entry of the teaching profession of such degree holders and thus, the Committee recommended that NET should be retained as a compulsory requirement for appointment of Lecturer for both undergraduate and postgraduate level, irrespective of candidate possessing M.Phil. or Ph.D. degree. In view of the recommendations made in the final report of the Mungekar Committee, the Union of India vide order dated 12th November, 2008 issued policy directions in exercise of power conferred under section 20(1) of the Act of 1956. Relevant portion of the policy directions given by the Central Government vide order dated 12.11.2008 are quoted below:-
(1) the UGC shall, for serving the national purpose of maintaining standards of higher education, frame appropriate regulations within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of this Order prescribing that qualifying in NET/SLET shall generally be compulsory for all persons appointed to teaching positions of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in higher education, and only persons who possess degree of Ph.D. after having been enrolled/admitted to a programme notified by the Commission, after it has satisfied itself on the basis of expert opinion, as to be or have always been in conformity with the procedure of standardization of Ph.D. prescribed by it, and also that the degree of Ph.D. was awarded by a University or Institution Deemed to be University notified by the UGC as having already complied with the procedure prescribed under the Regulations framed by the Commission for the purpose.
(2) the UGC shall notify the date or dates from which exemption from qualifying in NET/SLET in respect of Universities/Institutions Deemed to be Universities as well as the discipline for which such exemption is being granted only on the recommendations of a Committee of Experts to be constituted by the Commission and that the experts therein shall be persons of high eminence in the respective disciplines for which the persons possessing Ph.D. are considered for exemption from qualifying NET/SLET.
(3) The UGC shall not give any blanket or general exemption from NET/SLET to any University/Institution Deemed to be University unless the degree of Ph.D. awarded by it in all disciplines or programmes meet the same level of rigour in terms of standards and quality as laid down by the Commission for each discipline under the regulations for the purpose, and that exemption from NET/SLET in respect of Ph.D. awarded by any University/Institution Deemed to be University or to one or more of its programmes/disciplines in respect of such Ph.D. shall be further subject to the University/Institution continuing to comply with the regulations of the UGC and shall be open to review or reconsideration by the Commission' and such exemption shall be withdrawn in any or all disciplines or in respect of an award of Ph.D. to any person or persons, where the Commission has, on the basis of recommendation by the Committee of experts or on the basis of any inquiry conducted by it suo moto, reasons to believe that there has been deviation from or violation of the procedure prescribed by Commission.
Thereafter, the UGC in its 454th meeting held on 10th and 11th December, 2008 considered the directives issued by the Central Government on the basis of report of Mungekar Committee and it was of the opinion that in past relaxation has been given to the existing candidates, who have successfully completed M.Phil/Ph.D and were eligible for exemption as per the existing norms. The Commission had, therefore, recommended exemption from NET for such candidates as recommended by the Mungekar Committee upto June 2009 for M.Phil candidates and June 2011 for Ph.D. candidates and that would be in the spirit and tune with the past decisions taken by the Central Government.
Thereafter, the UGC has made amendment by way of 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 and the same is quoted below:-
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 positions in Universities/ Colleges/ Institutions.
The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India on 16.7.2009 conveyed the clarification with respect to the adhoc teachers, who were not NET qualified, they be given period of two years to qualify NET/SLET and requisite directions be issued by UGC to the Universities/Colleges/Institutions. The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India has sent another communication dated 30th March, 2010 under section 20 of the Act of 1956 to the effect (i) that the UGC shall not take up specific cases for exemption from the application of the NET Regulations of 2009 after the said Regulations have come into force, for either specific persons or for a specific university/institution/ college from the application of the 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 for appointment as Lecturer in Universities/Colleges/Institutions; (ii) that appropriate amendment to the second proviso to clause 2 of the UGC Regulations 2000 shall be made by UGC to give full effect to the policy directions issued by the Central Government dated 12th November, 2008, within 30 days from the date of issue of this direction; and (iii) that the decision taken by the UGC in its 468th meeting held on 23rd February, 2010 vide agenda item no.6.04 to 6.05 to grant specific exemptions from the applicability of NET shall not be implemented as being contrary to national policy.
The 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 were superseded by the Regulations of 2010. For recruitment and qualification by way of direct recruitment, it is provided in Regulation 3.1.0 that they shall be on the basis of merit through all India advertisement and selections by the duly constituted Selection Committees under the Statutes/Ordinances of the concerned University. The composition of such Committees should be as prescribed by UGC in the Regulations. Para 3.3.0 provides for minimum qualification for good academic record to be 55% marks ( or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the master's level and qualifying in the NET/SLET for Assistant Professors. Para 3.3.1 is relevant and the same is quoted below:-
3.3.1. NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities/Colleges/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 or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.
The UGC formed a legal opinion that both 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 and the Regulations of 2010 are prospective and not retrospective in nature and therefore, all candidates having M.Phil/Ph.D. on or before 10th July 2009 shall remain exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment as Lecturer/Associate Professor; the UGC further opined that all the candidates, who have either obtained Ph.D. Degree on or before 31.12.2009 and such candidates, who had registered themselves for Ph.D. Degree on or before 31.12.2009 and are subsequently awarded Ph.D. degree shall remain exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor.
The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India did not agree with the legal opinion formed by the UGC with respect to retrospective operation of 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 and Regulations of 2010 and it opined that as on date a candidate seeking appointment to the post of Lecture must fulfill the minimum qualifications prescribed by the UGC as contained in the UGC Regulations meaning thereby persons who have passed M.Phil/Ph.D. earlier to the 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 shall have to pass NET/SLET/SET and the exemptions which were granted by the UGC were recalled on the advice of Government of India. Hence, the petitions have been preferred questioning the vires of 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 and the Regulations of 2010.
Coming to the first submission whether 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 and Regulations of 2010 can be termed to be ultra vires, the Union of India has been given power under Section 20 of the Act of 1956 to issue directions and the Commission in the discharge of its functions under the Act of 1956 shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes as may be given to it by the Central Government. It is also provided under section 20(2) of the Act of 1956 that in case any dispute arises between the Central Government and the UGC as to whether a question is or is not question of policy relating to national purposes, the decision of the Central Government shall be final. Section 20 of the Act of 1958 is quoted below:-
20. Directions by the Central Government.- (1) In the discharge of its functions under this Act, the Commission shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes as may be given to it by the Central Government.
(2) If any dispute arises between the Central Government and the Commission as to whether a question is or is not a question of policy relating to national purposes, the decision of the Central Government shall be final.
Section 25 of the Act of 1956 confers power upon the Central Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the said Act. Under section 26, the UGC has been conferred with the power to make Regulations consistent with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder and such Regulations have to be published in the Official Gazettee. As per Section 26(1)(e), the UGC has no doubt power to frame Regulations with respect to defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instructions. As per Section 26(1)(f), the UGC may define the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any University. Under Section 26(1)(g), the UGC may regulate the maintenance of standards and the coordination of work or facilities in Universities. It is also provided in sub-section (2) of Section 26 that Regulations framed under section 26(1) (a)(b)(c)(d)(h)(i)& (j) require previous approval of the Central Government. However, with respect to the matters enumerated in Section 26(1)(e)(f) and (g), approval of the Central Government is not required. Section 26 of the Act of 1956 is quoted below:-
26. Power to make regulations.-(1) The Commission may by notification in the Official Gazettee, make regulations consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder:-
(a) regulating the meetings of the Commission and the procedure for conducting business thereat;
(b) regulating the manner in which and the purposes for which persons may be associated with the Commission under section 9;
(c) specifying the terms and conditions of service of the employees appointed by the Commission;
(d) specifying the institutions or class of institutions which may be recognized by the Commission under clause (f) of section 2;
(e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instructions.
(f) defining the minimum standards of instructions for the grant of any degree by any University;
(g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the coordination of work or facilities in Universities.
(h) regulating the establishment of institutions referred to in clause (ccc) of section 12 and other matters relating to such institutions;
(i) specifying the matters in respect of which fees may be charged and scales of fees in accordance with which fees may be charged by a college under sub-section (2) of section 12A;
(j) specifying the manner in which an inquiry may be conducted under sub-section (4) of section 12-A, (2) No regulation shall be made under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (h) or clause (i) or clause (j) of sub section (1) except with the previous approval of the Central Government.
(3) The power to make regulations conferred by this section except clause (i) and clause (j) of sub section (1) shall include the power to give retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, to the regulations or any of them but no retrospective effect shall be given to any regulation so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such regulation may be applicable.
Thus, it is apparent that 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 and Regulations of 2010 framed by the UGC have statutory force. The University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulation, 2000 contained Note to Regulation 1.3.3, 1.4.3, 1.5.3 and 1.6.1 and the said Note was amended initially in 2002 and thereafter, in 2006, with which amendments we are not concerned and the said Note was further amended by way of 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 to the effect quoted above. It is apparent from the Note contained in the 3rd Amendment Regulations 2009 that NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers of Universities/ Colleges/Institutions. It is also apparent from the proviso appended to the Note that candidates, who are or have been awarded Ph.D. Degree in compliance of the Minimum Standards Regulations of 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.
The UGC has further framed the Regulations of 2010 vide Notification dated 30th June, 2010 and the same were published in the Gazette of India on 18th September, 2010. Clause 3.0.0. contained recruitment and qualifications and Clause 3.3.1 makes it clear that NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. However, it was provided that candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the Minimum Standards Regulations of 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/ Colleges/Institutions. The UGC has not framed any other Regulations contrary to the aforesaid. However, UGC was clearly of erroneously legal opinion that in case only those candidates, who are or have been awarded Ph.D. Degree in compliance of Minimum Standards Regulations of 2009, are exempted from qualifying NET/SLET/SET, it would be giving of retrospective effect to the 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 & Regulations of 2010. There was no question of any room to form such opinion or to pass independent resolution by UGC as the Regulations are binding on it, it cannot violate them and the appointments are governed by the provisions in vogue when the advertisement has been issued and process of recruitment has been initiated; merely by the fact that some of the incumbents have obtained M.Phil./Ph.D. qualification at the time when there was exemption from passing NET/SLET/SET, such exemption can always be taken away with prospective effect; they are seeking appointment on the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer or equivalent post at present, it would not amount to giving of retrospective effect to 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 and Regulations of 2010 as framed by the UGC itself. Thus, Union of India was right in rejecting the opinion formed/resolution passed by UGC. The UGC has in fact not amended the Regulations and once it has not amended the Regulations, there was no room for the UGC to grant exemptions; such exemptions are not contemplated in the Regulations framed by the UGC itself; UGC is bound by its Regulations; it was harping upon ill founded opinion with respect to retrospectively of the 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 and the Regulations of 2010. Thus, no assistance can be derived by the petitioners from the resolutions passed by the UGC as the said resolutions ultimately did not culminate into formation of the Regulations; once UGC has framed Regulations, they are binding upon it and no departure can be made from them; the resolutions are juxtaposed to the 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 and thus, had no legal sanctity and rightly turned down by the Central Government.
Coming to the question whether the impugned Regulations framed by the UGC can be said to be ultra vires, we are unable to accept the submission that Regulations have been given retrospective effect, hence, they become ultra vires; in-fact no retrospective effect is given; it cannot be said that 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 and Regulations of 2010 are retrospective in nature; the relevant date is of seeking appointment, thus, it cannot be said that there is any vested right accrued to the petitioners to seek appointment without obtaining NET/SLET/SET. Once such rider has been put under the Regulations itself, which have been framed with avowed purpose and considering deterioration and falling standard of admission to M.Phil and Ph.D., varying standard in various Universities and to ensure maintenance of standards for higher education, no departure can be made from such rider and it is binding and by putting that rider, it cannot be said that any vested right of the petitioners has been violated or infringed in any manner. Effort was to ensure improvement of teaching standard. The Central Government had power to issue requisite directions under section 20(1) of the Act of 1956 and has rightly opined that the opinion of the UGC was ill-founded and there was no question of applicability of impugned Regulations of 2009 and 2010 with retrospective effect by not exempting Ph.D./M.Phil degree holders who have passed earlier. Even otherwise, once the policy matter has been implemented by UGC and framed the Regulations, there was no question of extending exemptions by giving go-bye to the said Regulations. When we consider the directions (1) to (3) issued under section 20(1) of the Act of 1956 by the Union of India in its communication dated 12th November, 2008, which have been quoted above, it becomes apparent from direction (1) that UGC was required to frame appropriate regulations for serving the national purpose of maintaining standards of higher education; UGC was mandated to frame Regulations within 30 days; NET/SLET shall generally be compulsory for all persons appointed to teaching positions of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in higher education; persons who possess degree of Ph.D. after having been enrolled/admitted to a programme notified by the Commission, after it has satisfied itself on the basis of expert opinion, has to be or have always been in conformity with the procedure of standardization of Ph.D. prescribed by it and also that the degree of Ph.D. was awarded by a University or Institution deemed to be University notified by the UGC as having already complied with the procedure prescribed under the regulations framed by the Commission for the purpose.
As per direction (2) contained in the communication of the Union of India dated 12th November, 2008, the UGC was required to notify the date or dates from which exemption from qualifying in NET/SLET in respect of Universities/Institutions Deemed to be Universities as well as the discipline for which such exemption is being granted only on the recommendations of a Committee of Experts to be constituted by the Commission and that the experts therein shall be persons of high eminence in the respective disciplines for which the persons possessing Ph.D. are considered for exemption from qualifying NET/SLET. Thus, exemption can be granted only on the recommendations of the Committee of experts consisting of persons of high eminence with respect to course done under Minimum Standards Regulations.
As per direction (3) contained in the communication of Union of India dated 12th November, 2008, the UGC shall not give any blanket or general exemption from NET/SLET to any University/Institution Deemed to be University unless the degree of Ph.D. awarded by it in all disciplines or programmes meet the same level of rigour in terms of standards and quality as laid down by the Commission for each discipline under the regulations for the purpose. Such exemption was also further subject to the University/Institution continuing to comply with the regulations of the UGC.
Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid directions (1) to (3) issued by the Union of India under section 20(1) of the Act of 1956 vide letter dated 12.11.2008 and the 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 that NET/SLET is minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturer/Assistant Professor and only those candidates, who are or have been awarded Ph.D. degree in compliance of the Minimum Standards Regulations of 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET. It is further apparent that though NET/SLET is compulsory for all persons appointed to teaching positions of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in higher education, however exemption from qualifying NET/SLET can be granted only on the recommendations of the Committee of Experts consisting of persons of high eminence and no blanket or general exemption from NET/SLET could have been granted by the UGC which was further subject to observance of Regulations framed by it and the UGC was supposed to undertake the exercise. Obviously, the impugned Regulations are prospective in nature and when a rider has been put by the UGC itself under the Regulations, there was no room for the UGC to grant exemptions giving go bye to the Regulations framed by it and to act against the national policy directive. It was not open to the UGC to take decision contrary to the Regulations framed by it. The opinion of UGC granting exemptions was ill-founded and not in accordance with correct position and based on wrong interpretation of Regulations and thus, the same was rightly turned down by the Central Government.
11. A bare perusal of the contents of the writ application and the nature of the controversy raised therein would reveal that the issue, so far this Court is concerned, has already been set at rest in view of the judgment and order delivered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Singh Shekhawat (supra). Repelling the challenge in case of Vijay Singh Shekhawat (supra), while examining the assailment as to vires of (3rd Amendment) Regulations of 2009 and Regulations of 2010, in a great detail, the Coordinate Bench concluded thus:-
Lack of legislative competence has not been urged. There is no violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. There is no violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution. The impugned Regulations have been framed in exercise of power conferred under section 26(1)(e) of the Act of 1956 and they are in tune with the directions issued by the Central Government under section 20(1) of the Act of 1956; they cannot in any manner be said to be ultra vires or illegal or arbitrary or unreasonable or irrational; they also cannot be said to be retrospective in nature, rather they are prospective in nature. There is also a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a subordinate legislation and the UGC has not exceeded the power while framing the impugned Regulations. The act of UGC is concomitant of expression of Entry 66 of List-I of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and the UGC has carried out the objectives of the national policy. Thus, we have no hesitation to dispel the challenge to the vires of the University Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (3rd Amendment) Regulations, 2009 and the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010.
Resultantly, the writ petitions being bereft of merits are hereby dismissed. Cost is made easy. A copy of this order be placed in all files.
12. While examining the identical challenge, the Coordinate Bench also considered the resolutions of the UGC granting exemptions and concluded such exemptions as against the national policy directives and the action of the Central Government in repelling was sustained. Further, it was specifically observed that the Regulations were not retrospective and a candidate has no vested right for consideration of his/her candidature for appointment without acquiring the qualification of NET/SLET/SET. In that backdrop of the facts, the grievances raised by the petitioners with reference to advertisement dated 1st November, 2012 cannot be sustained on any of the grounds pleaded in support thereof.
13. The controversy raised in the instant writ application stands decided in view of the judgment and order delivered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Singh Shekhawat (supra) and other connected matters, and we see no reason to take a different view than the one expressed earlier. The writ application is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. The stay application also stands closed.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA), J. (AMITAVA ROY), CJ. Sunil/P.A.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
(Sunil Solanki) P.A.