Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(3) The UGC shall not give any blanket or general exemption from NET/SLET to any University/Institution Deemed to be University unless the degree of Ph.D. awarded by it in all disciplines or programmes meet the same level of rigour in terms of standards and quality as laid down by the Commission for each discipline under the regulations for the purpose, and that exemption from NET/SLET in respect of Ph.D. awarded by any University/Institution Deemed to be University or to one or more of its programmes/disciplines in respect of such Ph.D. shall be further subject to the University/Institution continuing to comply with the regulations of the UGC and shall be open to review or reconsideration by the Commission' and such exemption shall be withdrawn in any or all disciplines or in respect of an award of Ph.D. to any person or persons, where the Commission has, on the basis of recommendation by the Committee of experts or on the basis of any inquiry conducted by it suo moto, reasons to believe that there has been deviation from or violation of the procedure prescribed by Commission.

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 retrospectively 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.

As per direction (2) contained in the communication of the Union of India dated 12th November, 2008, the UGC was required to notify the date or dates from which exemption from qualifying in NET/SLET in respect of Universities/Institutions Deemed to be Universities as well as the discipline for which such exemption is being granted only on the recommendations of a Committee of Experts to be constituted by the Commission and that the experts therein shall be persons of high eminence in the respective disciplines for which the persons possessing Ph.D. are considered for exemption from qualifying NET/SLET. Thus, exemption can be granted only on the recommendations of the Committee of experts consisting of persons of high eminence with respect to course done under Minimum Standards Regulations.

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.