Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In these writ applications, common question arises with respect to the eligibility of holders of M.Phil/Ph.D for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor whether they are required to qualify NET/SLET/SET. 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 (hereinafter referred to as the 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009) framed by the University Grants Commission (for short the UGC) in this regard in the year 2009 has been put into question as the UGC has put a rider that only those 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) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 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 petitioners have prayed that the said Regulations framed by the UGC on 11.7.2009 to the aforesaid extent be declared ultra vires and quashed. The petitioners have also prayed to quash 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 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 2010) to the extent of providing similar rider that only those candidates, who are or have been awarded 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. Prayer has also been made to declare that the impugned Regulations are not retrospective in nature and the candidates, who have passed M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree earlier before 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 came into force be held to be eligible for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor or other equivalent post without passing NET/SLET/SET and directions be issued to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor without qualifying NET/SLET/SET.

The Union of India has filed return in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12426/2011 Swati Meena & ors. V/s State of Raj. & ors., and the same was adopted in all cases. It was submitted that 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 and Minimum Standards Regulations of 2009 are prospective in nature, inasmuch as they apply to the appointments to be made after they came into force on 11th July, 2009; the candidates are required to possess qualifications as prescribed under the impugned Regulations; quality of teaching in higher education is a matter of great concern and vide letter dated 3.11.2010, the Central Government has clarified that the Regulations in force do not contain any provision for exemption of candidates, who are not having NET/SLET/SET and grant of exemption from NET/SLET/SET would amount to violating the 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009; NET/SLET/SET is compulsory for teaching positions as a policy relating to national purposes of maintenance of standards of higher education; any exemption sought by the petitioners would be contrary to the impugned Regulations as well as national policy; the impugned Regulations have been passed within the framework of law and do not suffer from any illegality or vice of arbitrariness so as to call for any interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

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 retrospectivity 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.

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.