Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Referring to the UGC Act, 1956, the learned for the petitioner submitted that it has overriding effect over all other Central, State and other laws and Statutes. He submitted that it is more true in view of the fact that the Act is enacted under Entry 66 of the Concurrent list. Therefore, the eligibility criteria as prescribed by the Statues of

6|Page SKAUST framed under SKAUST Act being in contravention to the UGC Regulations framed under the UGC Act, the former has to give way to the latter, and on this ground the Statutes prescribing a higher qualification as well as the advertisement notice are liable to be quashed. In this connection, the learned counsel further submitted that the respondent-University comes under UGC. Therefore, it cannot be claimed by the respondent-University or, for that matter, by any of the respondents that SKUAST, by virtue of it having been enacted under a separate Act, has the power to prescribe higher qualification. The learned counsel in this connection cited and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University v. Secy. to Govt., 2009 (4) SCC 590 paras 42 to 45.

7|Page 26.12.2011, the ICAR informed all these Vice Chancellors that the Competent Authority in ICAR, consequent to the notification of UGC published in the Gazette of India on 11.07.2016 for NET exemption to the candidates registered for Ph. D. programme prior to 11.07.2009, had approved that NET essentiality for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor and equivalent in the disciplines in which NET was conducted, for the candidates registered for Ph. D. prior to 11.07.2009 shall be exempted subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. The learned counsel further submitted that the regulations give the floor and not the ceiling. SKAUST is obliged not to lay down a lower qualification and there is no bar to prescribe a higher qualification.

iv. NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted.' From a plain reading of sub-clause (i) of Clause 4.4.1, it become axiomatic that it does not, ipso facto, lay down Master's as the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor; it only lays down the minimum percentage of marks at Master's level. This requirement of percentage of marks at Master's level is not relaxable even if a candidate possesses Ph. D. Now, it be borne in mind that clause (e) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act gives the UGC the power to define the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any 12 | P a g e person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University. As is seen, sub-clause (i) of Clause 4.4.1., says 'good academic record as defined by the concerned university' and then, sets the lower limit of percentage of marks at Master's level, meaning thereby that the UGC, while fixing the minimum percentage of marks at Master's level, in its turn, has left it to the discretion of the university concerned to define "good academic record" and, in that relation, however, the UGC has itself only set the minimum requirement as to the percentage of marks at the Master's level at 55%, below which, obviously, no candidate would be eligible to apply for the post. So, the intention of the Regulations, clearly is, to leave it to the university concerned to fix not only the higher percentage of marks at the Master's level, but also to mark out the higher limit of educational qualification for a post. This clause, therefore, cannot be read in a sense that it prescribes Master's degree as the requisite qualification and/or that a university is bound to prescribe Masters as the requisite qualification for appointment on the post in question, or that it cannot prescribe any higher qualification. The Regulations make it abundantly clearly that the right to define the good academic record has been left to the discretion of the Universities, which is to set the boundaries or extent of qualifications. This, however, would not preclude a University to prescribe only Masters as the requisite qualification.

26. Then sub-clause (iii) of Clause 4.4.1 of the Regulations makes the things further clearer. It is seen that this sub-clause starts with a well understood word 'notwithstanding'. Ordinarily, the meaning and the intent of this clause can clearly be understood by the words following it, which are 'anything contained in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) to this Clause 4.4.1'. Thus, as literally as it can be read, the meaning and intent of this non-obstante clause is plain and clear, which is that whatever is said in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) has to 13 | P a g e be excluded. However, the sub-clause conspicuously further qualifies the non-obstante clause by saying that candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph. D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedures for Award of Ph. D. Degree) Regulations, 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/Institution. This part of the sentence does not say anything about the minimum qualification mentioned in sub-clause (i), though by implication of the non-obstante clause, the minimum standard mentioned in sub-clause (i) would automatically get excluded. This appears to be so because a candidate possessing Ph. D. would necessarily have the Master's degree at his credit and, therefore, the non-obstante part of the sub-clause (iii) would not exclude the minimum standard set in sub- clause (i) of the Regulation which is 55% marks at Master's level. Therefore, even if a candidate holds Ph. D. Degree, for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, he is required to fulfill the requirement of such percentage of marks at Master's level. And the fact remains that sub-clause (iii) of Clause 4.4.1 speaks of what would be the requirement in case of a candidate possesses Ph. D., meaning thereby that the UGC has been conscious that it is leaving the discretion to define the good academic record to the universities and that it has visualized the possibility of a university prescribing Ph. D., as the required qualification for the post. Viewed thus, the answer to the question that this Court is faced with, which is whether the respondent-university could prescribe Ph D. as the qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, from the scheme of things, discussed above, has to be yes; because, in any case, the UGC Regulations only define the minimum standards. Therefore, for the sake of maintaining 14 | P a g e excellence and high quality in the standard of education, the respondent-university would be within its powers to prescribe a higher qualification, like Ph. D., if the University Statutes / Rules / Regulations or any law governing it, permit so, and if that be so, the candidates would be exempted from possessing the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET.