Kerala High Court
Dr.Manju C.Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2008
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28653 of 2008(J)
1. DR.MANJU C.NAIR, PI, DST FAST TRACK
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
3. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/11/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.28653/2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P6 and the petitioner seeks a direction to the 3rd respondent to implement Ext.P2 R%egulation and Ext.P3 order relating to Ph.D holders in the matter of recruitment pursuant to Ext.P5 notification issued by the respondent University.
2. Petitioner is a Ph.D holder from the respondent University and Ext.P1 is the notification regarding the Awarad of Research Degree in Botany. However, she has not cleared NET examination.
3. The grievance of the petitioner arises out of Ext.P5 notification and Ext.P6 erratum notification. In Ext.P5, it was inter-alia prescribed that, "for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Botany, clearance in National Eligibility Test WP(c).No.28653/2008 2 (NET) for Lecturers, conducted by UGC/CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC or Ph.D in the concerned subject or completed M. Phil degree in the concerned subject on or before 31st December, 1993.
4. This was followed by Ext.P6 erratum notification which clarified the position as follows;
"Clearance in the National Eligibility Test (NET) for Lecturers conducted by UGC/CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC.
However, the candidates who have
completed M.Phil Degree by 31st
December 1993 or have submitted Ph. D
thesis to the University in the concerned subject on or before 31st December, 2002 are exempted from appearing the NET examination."
WP(c).No.28653/2008 3
5. Since the petitioner acquired Doctorate only on 25.5.2005, going by Ext.P5, as clarified by Ext.P6, she is ineligible for the exemption. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 qualification is prescribed by the UGC and the same has been adopted by the Government. The petitioner contends that, as per Ext.P2, Ph.D holders in the concerned subject are exempted from NET. This has been adopted by the Government. On this basis the petitioner contends that the University could not have prescribed a cut off date as done in Exts.P5 and P6. Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment reported in University of Delhi V,. Raj Singh & Ors. (1994 Supp.(3) SCC 516) and contended that once the UGC itself has made prescriptions in the matter of qualification and if the University wants to make a departure, it must obtain prior approval from the UGC. It is contended that in the absence of having obtained such approval, the selection should be conducted as per Ext.P2 and if that be so, the WP(c).No.28653/2008 4 petitioner is entitled to exemption from NET and is an eligible candidate.
6. On the other hand, the counsel for the University submits that, initially as per the UGC prescription, Ph.D holders were exempted from NET examination till 31.12.1993. This was adopted by the University. It is stated that the cut off date was thereafter extended by the University till 31.12.2002 and that also was adopted by the University. Counsel contends that, while the prescription stood as such, the Academic Council of the University by its decision taken on 7.10.2008, amended qualifications and exempted Ph.D holders from NET clearance.
7. It is stated that the notification in question was issued on 29.7.2008, ie before the date of amendment viz. 7.10.2008 and going by the qualification as it stood on the date of the notification, those who have acquired Ph.D on or before 31.12.2002 alone were exempted from NET WP(c).No.28653/2008 5 and this is what is clarified by the University in Ext.P6. University, therefore contends that Exts.P5 and P6 reflects the correct position as regards qualification for the post of Lecturer and therefore the petitioner is an ineligible candidate.
8. Counsel for the University further relies on the judgment of this court in S.N. College V. n. Raveendran (2001(3) KLT 938), where a Division Bench of this court has held that in the matter of prescription of qualification for the post of Lecturer what governs is the regulation framed by the University. According to the counsel what is stated in Exts.P5 and P6 are the qualifications prescribed as per the regulations framed by the University and therefore the petitioner cannot be granted the relief sought for.
9. I have considered th submissions made by both sides. First, I shall deal with the impact of the judgments relied on by the counsel for the petitioner and also the WP(c).No.28653/2008 6 Standing counsel for the University. In the Apex court judgment in University of Delhi V,. Raj Singh & Ors. (1994 Supp.(3) SCC 516), after elaborately dealing with the University Grants Commission (Qualifications Required to a Person to be Appointed to the Teaching Staff of a University and Institutions Affiliated to it ) Regulations 1991, the Apex Court held that, the University is liable to comply with the regulations or it may seek approval for the relaxation from the requirements in a specified case. Proceeding further it was also held that the University may appoint one as Lecturer, who does not meet the requirements of the regulations without having first obtained UGC's approval, in which event it would, if it failed to show cause for if its failure to abide by the said regulations to the satisfaction of the UGC, forfeit its grant from the UGC. Referring to the aforesaid Apex court judgment, a Division Bench of this court in S.N. College V. N. Raveendran (2001(3) KLT 938) held that, it was WP(c).No.28653/2008 7 for the State Government and University to take steps to carry out necessary amendment in the University Act and Statutes and issue orders accordingly. It was also held that appointments are to be made based on such regulations.
10. Therefore, irrespective of the compliance or non compliance of the UGC regulations, appointments have to be made in terms of the regulations that are framed by the University concerned.
11. In this case, initially, going by UGC regulations which were adopted by the University, Ph.D holders were exempted from the clearance of NET till 31.3.1993. This exemption was extended until 31.2.2002. This position continued until 7.10.2008, when the Academic council of the University amended regulations dispensing with the requirement of NET clearance in so far as the Ph.D holders are concerned. Therefore, when Ext.P5 notification was issued on 29.7.2008, those Ph.D holders who had WP(c).No.28653/2008 8 acquired the same before 31.12.2002 alone were exempted. It is that qualification, which has been mentioned by the University in Ext.P5 and as clarified in Ext.P6. In view of this factual position, the petitioner cannot insist that Ext.P2 or Ext.P3 should govern selection to the post notified by Ext.P5.
12. Such being the situation, this court will not be justified in granting any relief sought for by the petitioner.
Be that as it may be, I leave it to the petitioner to pursue Ext.P7 representation filed before the authorities of the University.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi.
WP(c).No.28653/2008 9