Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. On the other hand, Mr. R.Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the University Grants Commission first drawn our attention to the Circular dated 10.2.1993 and submitted that by the said circular exemption from appearing in NET select test was given to the candidates including those who have already been awarded M.Phil up to 31.03.1991. However, the said cut off date prescribed in the said notification dated 10.2.1993 was extended to the candidates, who have completed M.Phil up to 31.12.92. On 21.6.1995, an amendment was brought whereby candidates who submitted Ph.D thesis or passed M.Phil examination by 31.12.1993 were exempted from the purview of eligibility test conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by UGC. Learned senior counsel submitted that a Regulation was introduced on 24.12.1998 prescribing NET as a compulsory qualification through exemption conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by UGC. On 4.4.2010, Regulations were again framed making NET as a compulsory requirement through the exams conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by UGC. Learned senior counsel submitted that the said Regulation dated 04.04.2010 was in supersession of earlier Regulations dated 19.09.1991 and 24.12.1998. By this Regulation NET was made compulsory even for candidates having Ph.D degree. However, candidates who have completed M.Phil degree or submitted Ph.D thesis in the concerned subject upto 31.12.93 were exempted. Learned counsel further submitted that on 31.07.2002, first amendment was brought about in the Regulation whereby NET remained compulsory requirement for PH.D holders. It was reiterated that to claim exemption, the candidates should have completed M.Phil degree or obtained Ph.D degree prior to 31.12.2002.

25. Mr.Krishnamoorthy, then drawn our attention to the second amendment dated 14.6.2006, which was brought based on the interim report of Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr.B.L.Mungekar. Under the said amendment also, NET remained compulsory requirement. But as regards Ph.D degree holders in the concerned subject, NET was exempted for PG and UG level teaching. As regards, M.Phil degree holders, NET was exempted only for Under Graduate level teaching. Learned counsel submitted that in the year 2008, the Ministry of Human Resources Department, Government of India, in exercise of power under Section 20(1) of the UGC Act, issued direction making NET as compulsory for the teaching post and to restrain the UGC from granting any blanket exemption from NET/SLET unless the degree of Ph.D has been awarded in terms of standard and quality laid down by the Commission.

40. In the instant case, as noticed above, in order to improve the quality of education, the first respondent namely., the Central Government set up a Review Committee under the Chairmanship of Bhalchandra Mungekar and other Experts to review the Scheme of National Eligibility Test. In its final report the Committee took a view that the NET/SLET test should be retained as a compulsory requirement for appointment of Lecturers at Under Graduate and Post Graduate levels irrespective of candidates possessing the degree of M.Phil or Ph.D. The report of the Mungekar Committee was considered by the UGC in its meeting held on 21.07.2008 and resolved that NET/SLET or Ph.D. shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment of Lecturers in universities, colleges and other institutions of higher learning. The government had also considered the report of the Mungekar Committee in the light of the recommendation of the UGC and issued a direction on 12.11.2008 under Section 20 of the UGC Act giving instructions to prepare appropriate regulations keeping in mind the national purpose of maintaining the standard of higher education prescribing that NET/SLET shall be compulsory for all persons to be appointed to teaching post of Lecturer or Assistant Professor in universities and other institutions imparting higher education. It was also suggested that only persons who posses the degree of Ph.D. after having been enrolled/admitted to a program notified by the UGC that too after it has fully satisfied itself on the basis of the expert opinion that such Ph.D. degree has been obtained in conformity with the procedure and standards prescribed by it only could be exempted. The government in exercise of the power under the Act also directed that the Commission shall not give any blanket or general exemption from NET/SLET to any university unless Ph.D. awarded by a university or an institution needs the same level of rigor in terms of standards and quality as laid down by the UGC for each discipline. In compliance with the above policy directive of the Central Government dated 12.11.2008 the UGC notified regulations by 3rd Amendment called 3rd Amendment Regulations, 2009, which was notified on 11.07.2009, which is impugned herein. It was categorically specified that qualifying NET/SLET would be the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in universities and colleges with exemption to be granted only to persons who have obtained Ph.D. degree in accordance with the standard and rigor prescribed under the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Colleges) Regulations, 2009.

49. In the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we have no hesitation in holding that the principles of Legitimate Expectation will have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As noticed above, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources felt the need to introduce NET as compulsory for the purpose of appointment of teaching post in order to upgrade the standard of teaching. For that purpose, Expert Committees were constituted consisting of eminent experts and academicians, who recommended that NET/SLET should be retained as compulsory requirement for appointment of lecturers irrespective of the candidates possessing degree in M.Phil or Ph.D. After considering the report of Prof.Mungekar Committee, the University Grants Commission was directed to frame regulations to serve the national purpose of maintaining standards of higher education. But, the University Grants Commission, without considering the object and purpose of raising the standard of education, and without considering the global scenario, although framed regulations, but, tried to give certain relaxation to the candidates for appearing in NET/SLET examination. In our view, therefore, the Central Government has rightly refused to approve the decision of the University Grants Commission. Hence, the impugned regulation and the decision of the Central Government cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be held to be illegal, arbitrary or whimsical, rather the decision is rational and based on public interest and also national policy to upgrade the standards of education in the country.