Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants would contend that in terms of the Government order dated 21.06.1995, the UGC notified the qualifications required for a person to be appointed as a teaching staff of Universities and Institutions. A proviso was inserted to 1991 UGC Regulations, whereby those candidates who have submitted Ph.D. thesis of M.Phil. examination by 31.12.2002 were exempted from passing NET/SLET. In terms of minimum qualification required for the appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it, in terms of Regulations 2000, the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of lecturer was 55% marks at Master's level and passing NET/SLET with exemption from passing said examination to those who have completed M.Phil. degree or have submitted Ph.D. thesis in concerned subject upto 31.12.2002. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed her Ph.D. degree in the year 2003 and as such she was not qualified for the UGC pay scale since 02.08.1993 i.e., date of appointment. It is submitted that the corrigendum dated 02.06.2007 was issued only to approve the appointment of the respondent with effect from 02.08.1993 with the State pay scale and not UGC pay scale by fixing the notional pay scale. The learned Single Judge mis-interpreted the same as fixation of UGC pay scale from 02.08.1993 and proceeded to allow the writ petition directing the respondents to pay all consequential benefits as per the directions issued by this Court. It is submitted that the respondent not being a qualified candidate, payment of UGC pay scale does not arise and the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is a burden on the State exchequer. Any submissions or concessions made by the Government Advocate/Government Pleader before the Court is not binding on the State Government. Even though the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants had made a submission before the learned Single Judge that the appellants would issue necessary direction to comply the order of extending UGC pay scale to the respondent with effect from 02.08.1993, that itself would not be a ground for the respondent to claim the benefit of UGC pay scale with effect from 02.08.1993.