Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(Hrishikesh Roy, J).

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The learned standing counsel for the Department of Higher Education Ms. R. Choudhury represents the respondent Nos.1 & 2. The University Grant Commission (UGC) is represented by the learned counsel Mr. A. Chamua. The learned CGC Mr. K.K. Parasar appears for the respondent No.4.

2. The prescription of NET/SLET qualification, for appointment to the post of Lecturer/Asstt. Professor in UGC category institutions, under the UGC (Minimum Qualifications required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2009 Regulation'), is challenged in this case. The petitioners who have enrolled themselves for M.Phil curriculum, seek exemption from the NET/SLET requirement, on account of the exemption granted to this category, under the UGC (Minimum Qualifications required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2006 Regulation').

10. In the present case, the exemption from NET/SLET requirement to undertake under graduate level teaching, was granted for those with M.Phil degree under the 2006 Regulation, but the exemption was omitted under the 2009 Regulation and hence NET/SLET was prescribed to be essential eligibility criteria, for recruitment of teachers, in UGC affiliated institutions. Therefore those with M.Phil qualification, who were being considered for appointment under the 2006 Regulation, could have been considered for appointment without NET/SLET qualification, only for a limited time frame (14.6.2006--11.7.2009). However post 11.7.2009, none are entitled to be so appointed, as they do not fulfill the minimum qualification prescribed by the UGC.

11. The petitioners may have expectation (legitimate or otherwise) to be considered for appointment as Lecturer/Asstt. Professor but they must satisfy the qualification norms applicable on the date of consideration. When the exemption period has ended, even the M.Phil degree holders are disentitled to claim exemption from the essential qualification of NET/SLET, on the strength of the 2006 Regulation since norms were re-laid w.e.f. 11.7.2009, through the 2009 Regulation.

12. It cannot also be overlooked that the petitioners here had not secured their M.Phil degree during the exemption period (14.6.2006--11.7.2009) but had Writ Petition (C) No.4788/2011 9 of 11 simply enrolled themselves for M.Phil curriculum in the distance mode, from the Vinayak Mission University. Such distance mode qualification (assuming it was obtained during the relevant period) would still not secure to the petitioners, exemption from NET/SLET qualification, under the 2006 Regulation.

17. It is also necessary to take note of the decision of Central Government, communicated through the letter of 3.11.2010, in pursuant to the resolution of the UGC for exemption from NET requirement, to reject the resolution for exemption and specifying that NET/SLET was compulsory for teaching positions, as a part of the National policy for maintenance of standards in higher education. Therefore any dilution of standard by a Court order would surely undermine the Writ Petition (C) No.4788/2011 10 of 11 nation's interest and also the power given to the Central Government, under Section 20 of the UGC Act, 1956. Therefore we cannot but hold that the petitioners are not entitled to any exemption from the requirement of NET/SLET qualification.