Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Union of India has filed return in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12426/2011 Swati Meena & ors. V/s State of Raj. & ors., and the same was adopted in all cases. It was submitted that 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009 and Minimum Standards Regulations of 2009 are prospective in nature, inasmuch as they apply to the appointments to be made after they came into force on 11th July, 2009; the candidates are required to possess qualifications as prescribed under the impugned Regulations; quality of teaching in higher education is a matter of great concern and vide letter dated 3.11.2010, the Central Government has clarified that the Regulations in force do not contain any provision for exemption of candidates, who are not having NET/SLET/SET and grant of exemption from NET/SLET/SET would amount to violating the 3rd Amendment Regulations of 2009; NET/SLET/SET is compulsory for teaching positions as a policy relating to national purposes of maintenance of standards of higher education; any exemption sought by the petitioners would be contrary to the impugned Regulations as well as national policy; the impugned Regulations have been passed within the framework of law and do not suffer from any illegality or vice of arbitrariness so as to call for any interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

(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regulations of the UGC and shall be open to review or reconsideration by the Commission' and such exemption shall be withdrawn in any or all disciplines or in respect of an award of Ph.D. to any person or persons, where the Commission has, on the basis of recommendation by the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.

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.