Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. In the counter affidavit filed by the Teachers Recruitment Board, the averments in paragraphs 7 and 8 read as follows:— “7. It is submitted that the exemption has been granted from acquiring SLET/NET qualification to those candidates who have been awarded Ph.D., degree as per the University Grants Commission Regulation 2009. The regulations are prospective in nature and there is no restriction for the Ph.D., holders as per the Regulation 2009. The petitioner has misconstrued that the candidates with Ph.D., Degree in compliance of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and procedure for award of Ph.D, Degree) Regulation 2009 alone shall be entertained. Therefore the averment of the petitioner could not be accepted.

10. I submit that but University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 however continued to provide an exemption from NET/SLET for Ph.D. holders. The conflict between the policy directive issued by the Central Government in terms of section 20 of the UGC Act and the 2009 Regulations itself, as well as the question as to whether a candidate who had obtained a Ph.D. prior to 2009 could claim a legitimate expectation or vested right to be considered for appointment as faculty in UGC Institutions, different decisions were issued by the Hon’ble High Court and all the decisions were placed before Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.Suseela and others vs. The University Grants Commission and another 2015 (8) SCC 129 was upheld the policy directive of the Central Government under section 20 of the UGC Act to the effect that the Eligibility Test was a mandatory requirement in the appointment of faculty to Colleges and Universities. I submit that even before the said decision the selection notification under which writ petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 claimed to have participated have been issued and therefore said decision cannot be made applicable to the selection process which commenced before judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and therefore the said contention of writ petitioner herein cannot be accepted and further it is pertinent to note that after the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court even for the candidate possess Ph.D. SLET/NET was made mandatory. I submit that above writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.”