Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Aggrieved of Advertisement Notice no.01 of 2017 dated 13 th March 2017,to the extent that prescribed Ph.D. Degree as qualification for the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist in the Faculty of Fisheries, the appellants/writ petitioners preferred a writ petition, being SWP no.721/2017 titled Irfan Ahmad Bhat and others v. SKUAST and others.

5.1 The case set up by the writ petitioners/appellant before learned Writ Court, as is apparent from the record,is that they have qualified B.F.Sc and have also done Post Graduation Degree in Fisheries, viz. Masters of Fisheries Science. They have also passed National Eligibility Test (for short "NET") conducted by Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board. Their claim is that Bachelors in Fisheries Science, done by them is Four Years‟ Course and as such a Professional Degree as clarified by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (for brevity "ICAR") and the said Degree is altogether different from the Degrees having Three Years‟ Course. 5.2 Appellants/writ petitioners also maintain in their writ petition that qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor by University Grants Commission(for short "UGC") is good academic record with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grading in point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master‟s Degree Level in the relevant subject or an equivalent degree from an Indian Foreign University, besides fulfilling the qualification, the candidates must have cleared NET for Lecturers conducted by UGC, CSSIR or similar test conducted by UGC. In contradiction to qualification prescribed by UGC, writ petitioners assert that SKUAST, while issuing Advertisement Notice no.03 of 2016 dated 10th October, 2016, invited applications for filling up the posts in Faculty of Fisheries, Rangil, Ganderbal, including Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist, has laid different qualifications therefor. 5.3 It is also assertion of appellants/writ petitioners in their writ petition that they represented against Advertisement Notice no.03 of 2016 dated 10th October 2016 before Deputy Director General (Fisheries Science), KrishiAnusandhanBhawan-II, New Delhi. That apart, writ petitioners also claim to have represented to respondent no.1 and as a sequence of which, Corrigendum dated 25th October 2016 was issued, deleting post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist from Notification no.03 of 2016 dated 10th October 2016. ICAR vide letter dated 9th March 2017 is stated to have informed Vice Chancellors of all Universities that competent authority in ICAR, consequent upon Notification of UGC published in the Gazette of India on 11 th July 2016 for NET exemption to the candidates registered as Ph.D. Programme prior to 11th July 2009, approved NET essentiality for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor and equivalent in disciplines, in which NET is conducted, for candidates registered for Ph.D. Degree prior to 11th July 2009, shall be exempted subject to the condition that Ph.D. Degree of a candidate is awarded in regular mode only; evaluation of Ph.D. thesis by, at least, two external examiners; open Ph.D. Viva Voce of candidate had been conducted; candidate has published two research papers from his/her Ph.D. work out of which at least one must be in referred journal; candidate has made two presentations in conference/seminars, based on his/her Ph.D. work. According to writ petitioners, aforesaid Notification has been issued only qua those candidates who qualified Ph.D. prior to 11 th July 2009 and for other candidates NET is compulsory to be qualified for being eligible for the post of Assistant Professor. Nevertheless, SKUAST, it is asserted, invited applications vide Advertisement Notice no.01 of 2017 dated 13th March 2017, for the post of Assistant Professor in different disciplines of Aquatic Environmental Management/Fisheries Science. According to writ petitioners, qualification prescribed by SKUAST and Rules relating to Assistant Professor, are in derogation to UGC norms, with an intention to accommodate some blue-eyed persons against post in question.

5.4 Grounds of challenge made use of by writ petitioners/appellants in their writ petition are that: qualification of NET is compulsory for candidates applying for the post of Lecturers and Assistant Professors and Ph.D. would be equated only to those, who have qualified it prior to 11th July 2009 and thus candidates, who have applied for the post in question have to be NET qualified and same cannot be equated with any other Degree and NET cannot be equated with any other speciality or publication; Advertisement Notice has been issued aiming at to accommodate some blue eyed persons and so many options have been put including a huge number of candidates, who are not qualified in terms of norms prescribed by UGC/ICAR and that it is Master‟s Degree in concerned subject with NET, which is a basic component for the post; Master‟s Degree in any discipline cannot be equated for the post of Assistant Professor in Fisheries Science and that General Master‟s Degree cannot be equated with candidates having Master‟s in Fisheries Science; petitioners are eligible to the post of Assistant Professor but they have been excluded from the zone of consideration, by incorporation of qualification by SKUAST, which is in contravention to UGC guidelines and rules; UGC Act comes within the purview of Entry 66 of List-I of 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India; UGC Act was enacted for coordination and determination of standards in Universities and for that purpose UGC was established in terms of Section 4 of UGC Act and the powers and functions of UGC have been laid down in the Act; UGC Act has been enacted by the Parliament in terms of Entry 66 of List-I of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, which will always prevail over University Acts; the minimum qualifications prescribed by UGC for any post or any minimum academic qualification cannot be deviated by any University and once any University acts in derogation thereof, such act is unconstitutional; the standards are requirements laid down by UGC and have to be followed by all State authorities and SKUAST is following Statute for appointing Assistant Professors, which is not in consonance with UGC norms; UGC Act prevails over any Act of University and Statute of SKUAST is in direct conflict with UGC Act and Regulations; Subordinate legislation must be reasonable and in consonance with legislative policy; Statute of SKUSAT provides that a candidate must be Ph.D. with coursework as prescribed by UGC Regulations of 2009 and Ph.D. is relaxable for candidates holding P.G. in Veterinary Science/M.Tech in relevant field of Agricultural Engineering, along with one publication in NAAS rate referred journal and NET, the said condition has not been incorporated by SKUAST in impugned notification, and that B.Sc. Bioscience is also not prescribed in the Statute of SKUAST which clearly shows that impugned notification has been issued only to shower undue benefits on their blue eyed candidates. 5.5 SKUAST filed its objections in opposition to writ petition before learned Writ Court. Their assertion is that SKUAST has never derogated from UGC standards, but, it has prescribed higher qualification that is within their rights and discretion and that UGC guidelines do not ipso facto apply to the States as same are first of all to be incorporated by respective States and in view of admissions made by writ petitioners, no case for interference is made out as writ petitioners are seeking enforcement of UGC guidelines directly. It is also averred by SKUAST in their objections that appellants/writ petitioners actually beseech to confine zone of consideration for advertised posts to their sphere only while as SKUAST is at liberty to expand zone of consideration which is in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. SKUAST has also asserted that petitioners want application of criteria fixed by UGC for selection process when it is settled position of law that regulatory bodies, like, UGC, MCI, only lay down minimum standards and employer concerned can set higher stands than minimum prescribed by the said body and, therefore, the SKUAST has every right to set higher standard inasmuch as same is in consonance with SKUAST Statute. 5.6 SKUAST insists that as per Statutes governing eligibility requirement for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist (Fisheries Science), candidate with B.Sc. (Bioscience) are eligible for the post subject to the condition that candidate must have completed requisite remedial/deficiency course(s) during Post Graduation in Fisheries Science and, therefore, the Post Graduate Degree obtained by a candidate with Graduation Level qualification of B.Sc (Bioscience) after having successfully completed requisite remedial/deficiency course(s) at Post Graduation level, is to be considered equal to Post Graduate Degree obtained by a candidate with graduation level qualification of B.F.Sc for determining eligibility for the post in question unless otherwise provided in the Statutes. The qualification for the post of Lecturer recommended by UGC as pointed out by writ petitioners/appellants in writ petition is minimum eligibility criteria suggested by UC whereas eligibility criteria for appointment by selection to the post in question fixed by SKUAST is not less than minimum eligibility suggested by UGC as and when advertisement for posts is floated by SKUAST so that satisfactory number of intending applicants with Ph.D. qualification in the concerned subject and NET do turn up with their application and that there does not seem any dearth of Ph.D. Degree holders with NET qualification and the accusation of writ petitioners against SKUAST are baseless inasmuch as SKUAST has not in any way compromised with minimum eligibility qualification for appointment of well qualified, talented and deserving candidates. unlike other academic institutions/universities in the State, SKUAST does not appoint Lecturers and as per SKUAST Act 1982, a Teacher means Assistant Professor-Junior Scientist and above, which infers that he/she appointed on the said post is simultaneously a Teacher as well as a Scientist (Researcher) and extensionist because a Teacher in SKUAST is mandated with triple functions of teaching, research and extension education. The mandatory functions of Teachers in SKUAST warrants standard eligibility requirement, but, it should not be less than the norms suggested by UGC or any other agency recognised for such purpose.

7. The grounds of challenge in the Appeal, as have been reiterated by learned counsel for appellants as well, are that: the appellants after participating in the Common Entrance Test, were selected to undergo Bachelors in Fisheries Science (B.F.SC) and they successfully qualified the said course and thereafter participated in the Entrance Test in All India Level and were selected for undergoing Master‟s Degree in Fisheries Science (M.F.Sc.); the appellants successfully qualified Master‟s Degree and also qualified NET conducted by ICAR/UGC; they were waiting for the posts to be advertised by SKUAST, but, they were astonished when they came to know about Advertisement Notice dated 10th October 2016, by which basic qualification prescribed by the University was in derogation of UGC norms as well as Rules being followed by the Universities in this regard; the appellants immediately filed a representation before ICAR as also before respondent no.1 or looking into the matter insofar as qualification prescribed for post of Assistant Professor was concerned and that respondent no.1, after giving a thoughtful consideration to appellants‟ representation, issued Corrigendum dated 25th October 2016, deleting advertised post of Assistant Professor from Notification dated 10th October 2016; thereafter, the appellants and other qualified fisheries professionals were waiting for fresh advertisement in tune with UGC guidelines as well as Rules prescribed in the Universities insofar as post of Assistant Professor is concerned, but, the SKUSAT again issued Advertisement Notice no.01 of 2017 dated 13th March 2017, showing qualification therein in derogation of the Rules; in the Advertisement Notice, Master‟s Degree with 55% marks has been shown to be qualification for the post of Assistant Professor, which, in any case, cannot be equated with Master‟s Degree obtained by candidates after qualifying their B.F.Sc Degree inasmuch as said Degree has been declared as professional degree by ICAR and same cannot be qualification for the post of Assistant Professor in Fisheries Science; the appellants challenged aforesaid Advertisement Notice as well as Statute as same were in conflict with the norms and guidelines prescribed by the UGC Act; learned Writ Court, in impugned judgement, mentioned that according to learned counsel for writ petitioners/appellants, the Graduate Degree of Bachelors of Fisheries Science (B.F.Sc.) is a professional degree and cannot be equated with B.Sc. in Bioscience or other Bachelors of Science, but, learned Writ Court did not choose to deliberate upon aforesaid aspect and has not made any sort of observations with regard to the same; the appellants have never made any sort of averment against private respondents as they have not challenged their eligibility or qualification, but, the basic case of writ petitioners/appellants was as regards qualification prescribed in the Advertisement Notice no.01 of 2017 as well as the Statute, which were in total conflict with qualification prescribed by UGC; learned Writ Court has not appreciated these averments made in writ petition by writ petitioners/appellants; basic case of appellants before learned Writ Court was that while issuing advertisement notice, SKUAST has not followed the Rules as well as norms prescribed by UGC/ICAR for filing up the posts of Assistant Professors in the Faculty of Fisheries; since Advertisement Notice was issued by SKUAST on the basis of its Statute, which too, is in derogation of UGC as well as ICAR norms, therefore, the appellants, besides challenging Advertisement Notice dated 13th March 2017, had also thrown challenge to SKUAST Statute to the same effect; learned Writ Court, after hearing parties, was pleased to direct SKUAST not to finalise process of selection, if any, initiated vis-à-vis post in question until further orders from the Court; the SKUAST filed their response and virtually admitted writ petitioners‟ case, by which they had clearly mentioned that they are bound to follow minimum qualification prescribed by UGC, however, they are within their rights to prescribe higher qualification; since basic case projected by appellants before learned Writ Court was with regard to minimum qualification, by which they had mentioned that in terms of impugned Advertisement Notice as well as the Statute, SKUAST is deviating from minimum qualification prescribed by UGC/ICAR; Advertisement Notice as well as Statute prescribe qualification, which is in total derogation of UGC/ICAR norms as not only the basic degree at Graduation level has been deviated but also the candidates, who have not done Master‟s Degree in Science, have been included in eligibility clause who can participate for the post of Assistant Professor; qualification prescribed by UGC for the post of Assistant Professor is minimum 55% marks in relevant subject at Master‟s level, which means that a candidate must have done Master‟s Degree in Fisheries with, at least, 55% marks, however, the Statute as well as impugned Advertisement Notice are contrary to aforesaid qualification, but, learned Writ Court, even though narrated the facts of the case as projected by appellants, has gone on a wrong assumption by mentioning that the appellants have challenged higher qualification of Ph.D. prescribed in Advertisement Notice as well as the Statute, which was not the case projected by appellants before learned Writ Court; basic case projected by appellants in writ petition was that advertisement notice dated 13th march 2017, issued by SKUAST as well as its Statute being contrary to UGC/ICAR norms and also judgements passed by the Supreme Court, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that NET is an essential qualification for the post of Assistant Professor; since advertisement notice as well as SKUAST Statute are contrary to UGC Act and ICAR norms, as the field of education is governed by Entry 66 of List I of 7 th Schedule to the Constitution of India, therefore, it is UGC Act and ICAR norms which have prevailing effect and SKUAST Statute, being in derogation of UGC Act and ICAR norms, has to be set-aside; SKUAST Act has been promulgated under Entry 25 List III of 7 th Schedule to the Constitution of India and UGC Act has been enacted in terms of Entry 66 List I of 7th Schedule, so same has an overriding effect over the State University, but, learned Writ Court has not properly appreciated aforesaid contention raised by appellants in impugned judgement as learned Writ Court has mentioned Entry List 66 of Concurrent List, which was not the case of appellants; learned Writ Court has not referred to any judgement of law with regard to aforesaid contention raised by appellants; qualification prescribed in impugned notification, besides Master‟s Degree, is Ph.D. Degree with course work and also NET qualified or at least two full length publications having a NAAS rating of not less than 4 on the last date of submission of application; it was the case of appellants before learned Writ Court that qualification of NET is compulsory for the candidates who would apply for the post of Lecturers and Assistant Professors and Ph.D. would be equated only to those who have qualified the same prior to 11th July 2009 in terms of Regulations of 2009, so the candidates, who had applied for the post, have to be NET qualified and same cannot be equated with any other Degree and also NET cannot be equated with any other speciality or publication, but learned Writ Court has not delved upon the said contention raised by appellants and has taken the case of appellants as if they were challenging higher qualification prescribed in advertisement notice, which, in fact, was never the case of appellants before learned Writ Court; in impugned judgement, learned Writ Court has relied upon judgement passed in SWP no.1558/2017 titled TanveerAhmad Khan v. SKUAST and others, however, while going through relevant paragraphs incorporated in the judgement, it becomes manifestly clear that the Supreme Court in the judgement relied upon by learned Writ Court in the said case, has held that while prescribing criteria for admission to institutions for higher education, including medical education, the State cannot adversely affect standards laid down by Union of India under Entry 66 of List I, and that, of course, there can be rules for admission which are consistent with or do not affect adversely standards of education prescribed by Union of India in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of List I, i.e. a State may, for admission to Post Graduate Medical course, lay down qualifications in addition to those prescribed under Entry 66 of List I, which would be consistent with promoting higher standards for admission to higher educational courses, but any lowering of norms laid down can and does have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the institutions of higher education; aforesaid judgement would squarely cover the case of appellants as appellants have contended before learned Writ Court that SKUAST cannot deviate from basic qualification prescribed by UGC, which has authoritatively been pronounced by the Supreme Court that they can prescribe higher qualification without making any sort of change in basic and essential qualification prescribed by UGC in their Regulations of 2010 as amended from time to time and these Statutes have been framed in exercise of power vested in SKUAST in terms of relevant provisions of Act of the State Legislature; SKUAST Statute is not prescribing higher qualification but is deviating from basic qualification prescribed by UGC; NET has been equated with publications and any candidate having done Master‟s Degree in Science is shown to be eligible in terms of SKUAST Statute, which is in derogation of UGC norms; that in the judgement dated 9th August 2018, which was relied upon by learned Writ Court, while passing impugned judgement, it has been observed that qualification mentioned in UGC Regulations of 2010 are minimum qualifications below which no University or institution can go, but at the same time, with a view to maintaining excellence in standard of education, a University or an institution can prescribed higher qualifications than such minimum qualifications mentioned in UGC Regulations of 2010; that appellants specifically mentioned in writ petition that candidates, having Ph.D. with course work in concerned subject as prescribed by UGC Regulations of 2009, are exempted from qualification of NET and the said position was also admitted by counsel for SKUAST; that learned Writ Court has differentiated judgement relied upon by counsel for appellants delivered by the Supreme Court in Annamalai University v. Secy to Govt., 2009 (4) SCC 590, on the ground that same pertains to distance education; that aforesaid judgement, relied upon by appellants before learned Writ Court, was only to bring home the point with regard to powers prescribed in Union List and Concurrent List; that UGC Act has to prevail over any other Act of other Universities and same has been held in aforesaid judgement as well; that Statute of SKUAST is in direct conflict with UGC and relevant regulations, therefore, same itself was ultra vires the UGC Act as it is well settled principle of law that subordinate legislation must be reasonable and in consonance with legislative policy and also give effect to the purpose of object of parent Act and good faith; though learned Writ Court relied upon UGC Act, yet it did not deliberate upon the same inasmuch as UGC Act was enacted for coordination and determination of standards in Universities; that UGC was established by Central Government in terms of Section 4 of UGC Act and powers and functions of UGC have been laid down in the Act; another judgement relied upon by counsel for appellants before learned Writ Court was the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in P. Suseela v. University Grants Commission, 2015 (8) SCC 129, in which it has been clearly mentioned that NET shall remain minimum eligibility condition for recruitment/appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Universities/college/institutions; that in the said judgement it has been clearly mentioned that the object of directions of Central Government read with UGC Regulations 2009/2010, are to maintain excellence and standards of higher education and keeping this object in mind, minimum eligibility condition of passing NET is laid down.