Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The Coordinate Bench of this Court also considered the backdrop of the facts relating to 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 and therefore, it will be gainful to consider the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at while deciding the case of Ravindra Singh Shekhawat (supra) wherein the Coordinate Bench held thus:-

Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions of the parties, it is necessary to consider the backdrop of facts leading to the framing of 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009. The UGC has made the NET examination compulsory for appointment to the post of Teachers and Lecturers in the Universities for the first time by framing the Regulations in 1991 and the Regulations of 1991 were framed on the basis of the recommendations of the Expert Committee appointed by the Union of India; Union of India considering the falling standards and disparity of norms with respect to M.Phil/Ph.D., constituted a Review Committee under the chairmanship of Prof.Bhalchandra Mungekar, which held extensive and intensive deliberations through out the country; Academicians, Scientists and Administrators were of the view that floodgates being opened for registration of M.Phil and Ph.D. degrees resulting into further deterioration of qualities of these degrees and consequently, making easy entry of the teaching profession of such degree holders and thus, the Committee recommended that NET should be retained as a compulsory requirement for appointment of Lecturer for both undergraduate and postgraduate level, irrespective of candidate possessing M.Phil. or Ph.D. degree. In view of the recommendations made in the final report of the Mungekar Committee, the Union of India vide order dated 12th November, 2008 issued policy directions in exercise of power conferred under section 20(1) of the Act of 1956. Relevant portion of the policy directions given by the Central Government vide order dated 12.11.2008 are quoted below:-
(1) the UGC shall, for serving the national purpose of maintaining standards of higher education, frame appropriate regulations within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of this Order prescribing that qualifying in NET/SLET shall generally be compulsory for all persons appointed to teaching positions of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in higher education, and only persons who possess degree of Ph.D. after having been enrolled/admitted to a programme notified by the Commission, after it has satisfied itself on the basis of expert opinion, as to be or have always been in conformity with the procedure of standardization of Ph.D. prescribed by it, and also that the degree of Ph.D. was awarded by a University or Institution Deemed to be University notified by the UGC as having already complied with the procedure prescribed under the Regulations framed by the Commission for the purpose.

Coming to the question whether the impugned Regulations framed by the UGC can be said to be ultra vires, we are unable to accept the submission that Regulations have been given retrospective effect, hence, they become ultra vires; in-fact no retrospective effect is given; it cannot be said that 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 and Regulations of 2010 are retrospective in nature; the relevant date is of seeking appointment, thus, it cannot be said that there is any vested right accrued to the petitioners to seek appointment without obtaining NET/SLET/SET. Once such rider has been put under the Regulations itself, which have been framed with avowed purpose and considering deterioration and falling standard of admission to M.Phil and Ph.D., varying standard in various Universities and to ensure maintenance of standards for higher education, no departure can be made from such rider and it is binding and by putting that rider, it cannot be said that any vested right of the petitioners has been violated or infringed in any manner. Effort was to ensure improvement of teaching standard. The Central Government had power to issue requisite directions under section 20(1) of the Act of 1956 and has rightly opined that the opinion of the UGC was ill-founded and there was no question of applicability of impugned Regulations of 2009 and 2010 with retrospective effect by not exempting Ph.D./M.Phil degree holders who have passed earlier. Even otherwise, once the policy matter has been implemented by UGC and framed the Regulations, there was no question of extending exemptions by giving go-bye to the said Regulations. When we consider the directions (1) to (3) issued under section 20(1) of the Act of 1956 by the Union of India in its communication dated 12th November, 2008, which have been quoted above, it becomes apparent from direction (1) that UGC was required to frame appropriate regulations for serving the national purpose of maintaining standards of higher education; UGC was mandated to frame Regulations within 30 days; NET/SLET shall generally be compulsory for all persons appointed to teaching positions of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in higher education; persons who possess degree of Ph.D. after having been enrolled/admitted to a programme notified by the Commission, after it has satisfied itself on the basis of expert opinion, has to be or have always been in conformity with the procedure of standardization of Ph.D. prescribed by it and also that the degree of Ph.D. was awarded by a University or Institution deemed to be University notified by the UGC as having already complied with the procedure prescribed under the regulations framed by the Commission for the purpose.

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.