Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

10.24 Submission of Mr AltafHaqani, representing respondent no.5, is that in terms of communication no.23(46)/2010-EQR(Edn) dated 26th December 2011, ICAR specifically waived off NET essentiality for candidates, holding Ph.D. Degree under UGC Regulations of 2009 and later communication dated 9th March 2017 as well provides for NET exemption for those candidates who were registered prior to UGC Regulations of 2009 dated 11th July 2009, subject to certain conditions. The said communication, it is contended, is in partial modification of earlier communication dated 26th December 2011 and that amendment / modification had been made in view of UGC Regulations of 2016 as by virtue of Regulation 3 of Regulations of 2016, UGC by way of amendment, inter alia, of proviso under Regulation 4.4.1 provided for exemption of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. Mr Haqani states that in Advertisement Notice in question, SKUAST has laid down same qualifications as were prescribed by ICAR in view of stipulations provided by Regulation 1.1.1 of UGC Regulations of 2010. Ph.D. Degree course prescribed by SKUAST is required to be appreciated by this Court, as said by Mr Haqani, in the context of objects/functions of SKUAST as laid down in Sections 5&6 of SKUAST Act 1982,envisaging advancement of learning and prosecution of research, which assignment could be discharged by a candidate having obtained doctoral degree based on research. Dispensation of NET by ICAR as also UGC also deserves to be appreciated in this context especially when the award thereof is not a qualification but only testifies passing of a test by a candidate which admittedly could not be a substitute to requirement of Ph.D. Degree. Mr Haqani, while referring to UGC Regulations of 2000, 2002, 2006, and 2009, has stated that the amending process in Regulations gradually reducing/removing essentiality of NET requirement as minimum qualification required for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor and consequential emphasis of possession of doctoral degree by the candidates, finally culminated as on date to the Notification of amendment Regulations 2016.

11.6 There is a lucid submission on behalf of learned counsel representing respondent-SKUAST that SKUAST is neither being given any grants by UGC nor is the Statute applicable in SKUAST,contradictory to the Regulations of UGC and that in terms of Regulation 1.1.1 of Regulations of 2010, ICAR has been given authority to prescribe norms/regulations and the same has been done in terms of ICAR Notifications dated 26th December 2011 and 9th March 2017, and therefore, question of adopting UGC Regulations of 2010 does not arise at all. He has also strenuously stated that SKUAST has prescribed higher qualification of Ph.D. as mandatory qualification whereas in terms of UGC Regulations of 2010, P.G. plus NET is minimum required qualification, which is not qualification prescribed by ICAR and SKUAST. His submissions are rational and cannot be contradicted.

11.7 Submission of learned counsels, representing respondents, is that in terms of communication no.23(46)/2010-EQR(Edn) dated 26th December 2011, the ICAR has specifically waived off NET essentiality for the candidates, holding Ph.D. Degree under UGC Regulations of 2009 and later communication dated 9th March 2017 as well provides for NET exemption for those candidates who had been registered prior to UGC Regulations of 2009 dated 11 th July 2009, subject to certain conditions. The said communication is in partial modification of earlier communication dated 26th December 2011 and amendment/ modification has been made in view of UGC Regulations of 2016 as by virtue of Regulation 3 of Regulations of 2016, the UGC by way of amendment, inter alia, of proviso to Regulation 4.4.1has provided for exemption of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. In Advertisement Notice in question, SKUAST has laid down same qualifications as have been prescribed by ICAR in view of stipulations provided in Regulation 1.1.1 of UGC Regulations of 2010. The Ph.D. Degree course prescribed by SKUAST, is required to be appreciated by this Court, in the milieu of objects/functions of SKUAST as laid down in Sections 5&6 of SKUAST Act 1982, envisaging advancing of learning and prosecution of research, that assignment could be discharged by a candidate having obtained doctoral degree based on research and not by Post Graduate candidate. Dispensation of NET by ICAR as also UGC also deserves to be appreciated, in this respect, especially when the award thereof is not a qualification but only testifies passing of a test by a candidate which admittedly could not be a substitute to requirement of Ph.D. Degree.