Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Hence, Annexure R3(b) noticed the different regulations, which initiated a process by which candidates could be identified for the purpose of exemption from minimum qualification of NET/SLET. This exemption has, however, interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Suseela.

13. We have looked at the Regulations of 2010. We see from Clause 3.3.1 that "NET/SLET/SET is the minimum connected cases eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities/Colleges/Institutions"

(sic). The proviso is also to be noticed, which exempted such requirement in case of candidates who have been awarded a Ph.D degree in accordance with the UGC Regulations of 2009. It is this proviso which was found to be against the directions of the Central Government issued under Section 26 of the UGC Act by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Suseela. P.Suseela considered the prayer for exemption of the candidates who had obtained Ph.D as per the Regulations of 2009. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that merely because the Regulations of 2009 provided for an exemption with respect to candidates having Ph.D from obtaining NET/SLET/SET, it cannot be said that after the Regulations of 2010 came into force the exemption would apply to all those persons who obtained Ph.D as per the UGC Regulations of 2009. This was found to be clearly in violation of the directions by the Central Government under Section 26. This finding applies to those fresh candidates who seek appointment as Lecturers/ Assistant Professors. A person appointed long before the NET qualification was made mandatory in 2010, would be unaffected by the later requirement. In such circumstances, NET/SLET is a mandatory connected cases qualification as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Suseela being a mandatory stipulation as required by the Central Government under Section 26 of the UGC Act.

The categoric finding is that the Central Government, as a matter of policy, was of the opinion that any exemption would compromise the excellence of teaching standards in the institutions governed by the UGC. The above view has been reiterated and affirmed by Manoj Sharma. We cannot find Manoj Sharma having laid down any proposition different from that stated in P.Suseela.

17. Viewed in the above perspective. It has to be found that Dr.Baby Chakrapani does not have the qualification of NET/SLET, which is a mandatory qualification as spoken of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; which stands incorporated in the Regulations of 2009. The exemption in the Regulations of 2009 to Ph.D. holders being against the policy decision of the Central Government was held to be not sustainable. The exemption, hence, by the rigour of the Supreme Court decision, is no more available in the Regulations of 2009. In such circumstances, Annexure connected cases R3(b) proffered by the UGC for exemption of the Ph.D. qualification to be in accordance with the UGC Regulations of 2009 for the purpose of exemption from NET/SLET qualification has absolutely no effect. Viewed in that perspective, what could be looked into by the University is only a matter of equivalence, which has been looked into and Ph.D. qualifications of both the selected candidates as also the post-graduate qualification of one of them was found to be equivalent and sufficient for the purpose of appointment as Assistant Professor in the University. Equivalence is not an issue dealt with in Annexure R3(b) and it falls for consideration only as per the norms of the University to which the selections are conducted. We have already held that there is no requirement for such equivalence to be furnished along with the application, since the time for making an application under the notification was not enough for applying and getting a certificate of equivalence. We reiterate that the University has looked into the qualifications and appropriate authority has taken a decision and they are satisfied that the Ph.D. and post-graduation obtained from outside Universities are equivalent to those issued by the University itself and satisfies the eligibility condition connected cases for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor.

19. There is also a contention that at the time of notification, Regulations of 2009 with exemption was applicable and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Suseela came only on 16.03.2015. We have to immediately notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not held the declaration made thereunder to be prospective. The exemption to NET/SLET having been found to be against the specific requirement made by the Central Government under Section 26 of the UGC Act, there could be no exemption allowed even prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after the regulations of 2010 came into effect. We also notice that the actual selection was carried out on 13.05.2015, after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.03.2015. The Regulations of 2018 also would not be applicable to the selection made in the year 2015; by a notification of the year 2013. In such circumstances, we have to find the appointment of Dr.Baby Chakrapani to be in violation of the Regulations of the UGC. We set aside the connected cases same, allowing the writ petition filed by Dr.Rehna Augustine, being the 2nd rank holder, who is entitled to the appointment. The appointment shall be made within a month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.