1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.871 OF 2018
arising out of SLP (C)No. 26528 of 2013
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MANOJ SHARMA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.872 OF 2018
arising out of SLP (C)No. 26529 of 2013
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ALOK TRIPATHI & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. These two appeals have been filed against
the identically worded judgments of High Court
of Madhya Pradesh dated 05.12.2012 and
17.01.2013 respectively dismissing the writ
2
appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
The facts and issue in both the appeals being
common, it is sufficient to refer to the facts
and pleadings in civil appeal arising out of
SLP (C) No. 26528 of 2017 for deciding both the
appeals. The parties shall be referred to as
described in the writ petition.
3. The writ petitioners had passed M.Phil.
from different universities under distance
education (between the year 2007 to 2009)
before 11.07.2009. Writ petitioners were
engaged as guest lecturers in different
Government/Semi Government Colleges since
before the year 2009. Higher Education
Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh
issued an order dated 22.02.2012 on the subject
“Arrangement of Guest Lecturers in Government
Colleges for the remaining period of Academic
Session 201112 and upcoming sessions”.
4. The Government order provided for criteria
for selection under which various marks were
3
allocated for Ph.D and NET/SET, M.Phil. and
NET/SET. Regional Additional Director, Higher
Education, Gwalior Madhya Pradesh issued an
advertisement dated 21.04.2012 inviting
application for the post of Guest Lecturer in
different subjects. Writ Petitioners had
applied for different posts of Guest Lecturers
through online mode. Their applications were
not accepted. On inquiry, they came to know
that those candidates who had obtained M.Phil.
degree through distance education programme are
not qualified.
5. Writ Petition No. 3290 of 2012, Manoj
Sharma and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh
was filed wherein High Court passed an interim
order on 14.05.2012 and directing the
respondents to accept the application form of
the candidates and the result of the candidates
was to be kept in the sealcover.
6. Writ Petitioners on the strength of the
interim order submitted their applications.
4
Writ Petition No. 3290 of 2012, Manoj Sharma
and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh was
finally disposed off by learned Single Judge on
29.08.2012, holding that those candidates who
have cleared M.Phil. qualification before the
Regulations 2009, namely, University Grants
Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure
for the award of M.Phil./Ph.D Degree)
Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter shall be
referred to as “Regulations 2009 of UGC
(Minimum Standards and Procedure”) are eligible
and their result be declared. Learned Single
Judge issued following directions:
“It is further reported that although
petitioner's case was considered, but
by way of interim order, it was
directed that his result will not be
declared. Now final order is passed.
Petitioner is found eligible,
therefore, respondents shall consider
the case of the petitioner as eligible
on the basis of the aforesaid Master
of Philosophy certificate and declare
the result alongwith other
candidates.”
7. The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a writ
5
appeal against the judgments of learned Single
Judge and Division Bench of the High Court vide
its judgment dated 05.12.2012 dismissed the
appeal. The State is in appeal against the
judgment of the Division Bench.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that in view of the regulations framed by the
University Grants Commission, Regulations 2009
of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure), the
M.Phil./Ph.D. Programmes conducted through
distance education are not acceptable. He
submits that since M.Phil. degree of the writ
petitioners was by distance education mode,
they do not fulfil the qualification for
appointment as Guest Lecturer and the judgment
of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench
taking a contrary view is unsustainable.
9. No one has appeared on behalf of the
respondent at the time of hearing. Although a
counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondent
No. 1, Manoj Sharma has been filed, supporting
6
the view taken by the learned Single Judge and
the Division Bench. We have considered the
submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant and perused the record.
10. The Regulations 2009 of UGC on Minimum
Standards and Procedure were published in
Gazette of India on 11.7.2009. Regulation 5
which is relevant, is to the following effect:
“Regulation 5. Notwithstanding
anything contained in these
Regulations or any other Rule or
regulation, for the time being in
force, no University, Institution,
Deemed to be University and
College/Institution of National
Importance shall conduct M.Phil and
Ph.D Programmes through distance
education mode.”
11. Learned Single Judge and Division Bench
took the view that according to Regulations
2009 of UGC on Minimum Standards and Procedure,
it was only with effect from 11.7.2009 that any
university, institution or deemed university
were prohibited from conducting M.Phil./Ph.D.
7
through distance education mode hence, degree
obtained prior to enforcement of said
regulation are not washed out. The High Court
has held that Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
Standards and Procedure) are prospective in
nature and shall not operate retrospectively.
Learned Single Judge took the view that
Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and
Procedure) being not retrospective shall not
wipe out the M.Phil. qualification already
acquired by the writ petitioners prior to
abovesaid regulation.
12. Regulation 3 under Regulations 2009 of UGC
(Minimum Standards and Procedure), clearly
provides for enforcement for the regulation
from the date of their publication in the
Gazette of India. Regulation 3 is as follows:
“They shall come into force with
effect from the date of their
publication in the Gazette of India.”
13. Thus, it is clear that regulations are
prospective in nature and may not affect the
8
qualifications granted by an university or
institution prior to the enforcement of the
regulation. We thus do not find any error in
the judgment of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh. Learned Single Judge had thus rightly
directed the respondent to consider the case of
the writ petitioners on the basis of M.Phil.
degree and declare the result alongwith other
candidates.
14. There is another issue which needs to be
noticed at this juncture. On the same day when
regulations pertaining to Minimum Standards and
Procedure for the award of M.Phil./Ph.D Degree
were published, another regulations were
published in the Gazette on the same day i.e.
on 11.7.2009, namely, UGC(Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment and Career
Advancement of Teachers in Affiliated
Universities and Institutions) (3rd amendment)
Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter shall be
referred to as “Regulations 2009 of UGC(Minimum
9
Qualifications for Appointment”).
15. University Grants Commission had issued
regulations relating to minimum qualification
for the post of lecturer in the year 2000 which
regulations were amended in 2002 and 2006.
According to Regulations 2000, Regulation 1.3.3
provides for qualification for Lecturer as
follows:
“1.3.3 Lecturer
Good academic record with at least 55%
of the marks or, an equivalent grade
of B in the 7 point scale with latter
grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the
Master's degree level, in the relevant
subject from an Indian University, or,
an equivalent degree from a foreign
university.
Besides fulfilling the above
qualifications, candidates should have
cleared the eligibility test (NET) for
lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR
or similar test accredited by the UGC.
Note: NET shall remain the
compulsory requirement for
appointment as Lecturer even for
candidates having Ph.D. degree.
However, the candidates who have
completed M. Phil. Degree or have
10
submitted Ph.D. thesis in the
concerned subject up to 31st
December, 1993, are exempted from
appearing in the NET examination.”
16. As noted above, the abovementioned
regulations were amended and amendments dated
11.7.2009 were relevant whereas the note as
contained in Regulation 1.3.3 was substituted by
following:
“NET/SLET shall remain the minimum
eligibility condition for recruitment
and appointment of Lecturers in
Universities /Colleges/Institutions.
Provided, however, that
candidates, who are or have been
awarded Ph.D. Degree in compliance of
the “University Grants
Commission(minimum standards and
procedure for award of Ph.D Degree),
Regulation 2009, shall be exempted
from the requirement of the minimum
eligibility condition of NET/SLET for
recruitment and appointment of
Assistant Professor or equivalent
positions in Universities/Colleges
/Institutions.”
17. It has to be noticed that the amendment as
made in the minimum qualification, now provides
11
that the exemption from NET shall be given to
the Ph.D. degree holders, only when Ph.D.
degree has been awarded to them in compliance
with the Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
Standards and Procedure). The above provision
thus, made it mandatory that for lecturers NET
qualification is necessary and exemption shall
be granted to those Ph.D. degree holders who
have obtained Ph.D. degree in accordance with
the Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards
and Procedure). The purpose and object of the
above amendments in both Regulations 2009 of
UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure) as well
as Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment) is not far to
seek. There has been challenge to amendments
made in Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment)in so far as it
denied the benefit to Ph.D degree holders who
had obtained Ph.D prior to 11.7.2009. Writ
Petitions were filed in different High Courts
12
challenging the regulations on different
grounds including that regulations are
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 which
discriminate the Ph.D. degree holders who have
obtained Ph.D. degree prior to 11.7.2009 and
those who obtained the degree after 11.7.2009
in accordance with Regulations 2009 of UGC on
Minimum Standards and Procedure.
18. The challenge to regulations were repelled
by different High Courts whereas Allahabad High
Court vide its judgment dated 6.4.2012 in Dr.
Ramesh Kumar Yadav and Another versus
University of Allahabad and Others has upheld
the challenge. Appeals were filed against the
judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, Delhi
High Court and Madras High Court by the
candidates whose writ petitions were dismissed
as well as against the judgment of the
Allahabad High Court dated 06.04.2012,
upholding the contention of the candidates.
This Court decided all the appeals by its
13
judgment reported in P. Susheela and Others
versus University Grants Commission and Others,
(2015) 8 SCC 129. This Court upheld the
judgment of the High Courts of Rajasthan,
Madras and Delhi and set aside the judgment of
the Allahabad High Court dated 6.4.2012,
upholding that the amendments made in
Regulations 2009 of UGC(Minimum Qualifications
for Appointment) were valid and there is a
valid classification between the candidates who
have obtained degree prior to Regulations 2009
of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure) and
those who obtained the degree in accordance
with the abovesaid regulation.
19. Thus, rejecting the contention of the
private respondent, following was laid down in
paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 18:
“16. Similar is the case on facts
here. A vested right would arise only
if any of the appellants before us had
actually been appointed to the post of
Lecturer/Assistant Professors. Till
that date, there is no vested right in
any of the appellants. At the highest,
14
the appellants could only contend that
they have a right to be considered for
the post of Lecturer/Assistant
Professor. This right is always
subject to minimum eligibility
conditions, and till such time as the
appellants are appointed, different
conditions may be laid down at
different times. Merely because an
additional eligibility condition in
the form of a NET test is laid down,
it does not mean that any vested right
of the appellants is affected, nor
does it mean that the regulation
laying down such minimum eligibility
condition would be retrospective in
operation. Such condition would only
be prospective as it would apply only
at the stage of appointment. It is
clear, therefore, that the contentions
of the private appellants before us
must fail.
17. One of the learned counsel for the
petitioners argued, based on the
language of the direction of the
Central Government dated 12112008
that all that the Government wanted
UGC to do was to "generally" prescribe
NET as a qualification. But this did
not mean that UGC had to prescribe
this qualification without providing
for any exemption. We are unable to
accede to this argument for the simple
reason that the word "generally"
precedes the word "compulsory" and it
is clear that the language of the
direction has been followed both in
letter and in spirit by the UGC
regulations of 2009 and 2010.
15
18. The arguments based on Article
14 equally have to be rejected. It is
clear that the object of the
directions of the Central Government
read with the UGC Regulations of
2009/2010 are to maintain excellence
in standards of higher education.
Keeping this object in mind, a minimum
eligibility condition of passing the
national eligibility test is laid
down. True, there may have been
exemptions laid down by UGC in the
past, but the Central Government now
as a matter of policy feels that any
exemption would compromise the
excellence of teaching standards in
universities/ colleges/institutions
governed by the UGC. Obviously, there
is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory
in this in fact it is a core
function of UGC to see that such
standards do not get diluted.”
20. Thus, from the above judgment, it is clear
that NET qualification is now minimum
qualification for appointment of Lecturer and
exemption granted to M.Phil. degree holders
have been withdrawn and exemption is allowed
only to those Ph.D. degree holders who have
obtained the Ph.D. degree in accordance with
11.7.2009 regulations, namely, Regulations 2009
of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure).
16
Although, this aspect has not been noticed by
the High Court but since the learned Single
Judge has directed the consideration of the
case of the writ petitioner on the basis of
M.Phil. degree which was obtained by them by
distance education mode prior to 2009, it is
necessary that their eligibility for the post
be examined taking into consideration the
Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Qualifications
for Appointment). The advertisement and
selection for Guest Lecturers having been
conducted in the year 2012 when both the
Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and
Procedure) and Regulations 2009 of UGC(Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment) were
applicable.
21. There is nothing on the record as to
whether after the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, writ petitioners' result was
declared and they were selected or appointed.
This Court has also passed an interim order of
17
16.08.2013 staying the operation of the
judgment of the High Court for the period of
three months. No further orders have been
passed extending the interim order.
22. We are thus of the view that judgment of
the High Court needs no interference in this
appeal, however, the appeals are to be disposed
off with the direction to consider the
eligibility of the writ petitioner taking also
into consideration the Regulations 2009 of UGC
(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment).
23. Both the appeals are disposed off
accordingly.
.........................J.
( A.K. SIKRI )
.........................J.
( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
NEW DELHI,
January 25, 2018.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.871 OF 2018
arising out of SLP (C)No. 26528 of 2013
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MANOJ SHARMA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.872 OF 2018
arising out of SLP (C)No. 26529 of 2013
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ALOK TRIPATHI & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. These two appeals have been filed against
the identically worded judgments of High Court
of Madhya Pradesh dated 05.12.2012 and
17.01.2013 respectively dismissing the writ
2
appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
The facts and issue in both the appeals being
common, it is sufficient to refer to the facts
and pleadings in civil appeal arising out of
SLP (C) No. 26528 of 2017 for deciding both the
appeals. The parties shall be referred to as
described in the writ petition.
3. The writ petitioners had passed M.Phil.
from different universities under distance
education (between the year 2007 to 2009)
before 11.07.2009. Writ petitioners were
engaged as guest lecturers in different
Government/Semi Government Colleges since
before the year 2009. Higher Education
Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh
issued an order dated 22.02.2012 on the subject
“Arrangement of Guest Lecturers in Government
Colleges for the remaining period of Academic
Session 201112 and upcoming sessions”.
4. The Government order provided for criteria
for selection under which various marks were
3
allocated for Ph.D and NET/SET, M.Phil. and
NET/SET. Regional Additional Director, Higher
Education, Gwalior Madhya Pradesh issued an
advertisement dated 21.04.2012 inviting
application for the post of Guest Lecturer in
different subjects. Writ Petitioners had
applied for different posts of Guest Lecturers
through online mode. Their applications were
not accepted. On inquiry, they came to know
that those candidates who had obtained M.Phil.
degree through distance education programme are
not qualified.
5. Writ Petition No. 3290 of 2012, Manoj
Sharma and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh
was filed wherein High Court passed an interim
order on 14.05.2012 and directing the
respondents to accept the application form of
the candidates and the result of the candidates
was to be kept in the sealcover.
6. Writ Petitioners on the strength of the
interim order submitted their applications.
4
Writ Petition No. 3290 of 2012, Manoj Sharma
and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh was
finally disposed off by learned Single Judge on
29.08.2012, holding that those candidates who
have cleared M.Phil. qualification before the
Regulations 2009, namely, University Grants
Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure
for the award of M.Phil./Ph.D Degree)
Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter shall be
referred to as “Regulations 2009 of UGC
(Minimum Standards and Procedure”) are eligible
and their result be declared. Learned Single
Judge issued following directions:
“It is further reported that although
petitioner's case was considered, but
by way of interim order, it was
directed that his result will not be
declared. Now final order is passed.
Petitioner is found eligible,
therefore, respondents shall consider
the case of the petitioner as eligible
on the basis of the aforesaid Master
of Philosophy certificate and declare
the result alongwith other
candidates.”
7. The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a writ
5
appeal against the judgments of learned Single
Judge and Division Bench of the High Court vide
its judgment dated 05.12.2012 dismissed the
appeal. The State is in appeal against the
judgment of the Division Bench.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that in view of the regulations framed by the
University Grants Commission, Regulations 2009
of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure), the
M.Phil./Ph.D. Programmes conducted through
distance education are not acceptable. He
submits that since M.Phil. degree of the writ
petitioners was by distance education mode,
they do not fulfil the qualification for
appointment as Guest Lecturer and the judgment
of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench
taking a contrary view is unsustainable.
9. No one has appeared on behalf of the
respondent at the time of hearing. Although a
counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondent
No. 1, Manoj Sharma has been filed, supporting
6
the view taken by the learned Single Judge and
the Division Bench. We have considered the
submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant and perused the record.
10. The Regulations 2009 of UGC on Minimum
Standards and Procedure were published in
Gazette of India on 11.7.2009. Regulation 5
which is relevant, is to the following effect:
“Regulation 5. Notwithstanding
anything contained in these
Regulations or any other Rule or
regulation, for the time being in
force, no University, Institution,
Deemed to be University and
College/Institution of National
Importance shall conduct M.Phil and
Ph.D Programmes through distance
education mode.”
11. Learned Single Judge and Division Bench
took the view that according to Regulations
2009 of UGC on Minimum Standards and Procedure,
it was only with effect from 11.7.2009 that any
university, institution or deemed university
were prohibited from conducting M.Phil./Ph.D.
7
through distance education mode hence, degree
obtained prior to enforcement of said
regulation are not washed out. The High Court
has held that Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
Standards and Procedure) are prospective in
nature and shall not operate retrospectively.
Learned Single Judge took the view that
Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and
Procedure) being not retrospective shall not
wipe out the M.Phil. qualification already
acquired by the writ petitioners prior to
abovesaid regulation.
12. Regulation 3 under Regulations 2009 of UGC
(Minimum Standards and Procedure), clearly
provides for enforcement for the regulation
from the date of their publication in the
Gazette of India. Regulation 3 is as follows:
“They shall come into force with
effect from the date of their
publication in the Gazette of India.”
13. Thus, it is clear that regulations are
prospective in nature and may not affect the
8
qualifications granted by an university or
institution prior to the enforcement of the
regulation. We thus do not find any error in
the judgment of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh. Learned Single Judge had thus rightly
directed the respondent to consider the case of
the writ petitioners on the basis of M.Phil.
degree and declare the result alongwith other
candidates.
14. There is another issue which needs to be
noticed at this juncture. On the same day when
regulations pertaining to Minimum Standards and
Procedure for the award of M.Phil./Ph.D Degree
were published, another regulations were
published in the Gazette on the same day i.e.
on 11.7.2009, namely, UGC(Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment and Career
Advancement of Teachers in Affiliated
Universities and Institutions) (3rd amendment)
Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter shall be
referred to as “Regulations 2009 of UGC(Minimum
9
Qualifications for Appointment”).
15. University Grants Commission had issued
regulations relating to minimum qualification
for the post of lecturer in the year 2000 which
regulations were amended in 2002 and 2006.
According to Regulations 2000, Regulation 1.3.3
provides for qualification for Lecturer as
follows:
“1.3.3 Lecturer
Good academic record with at least 55%
of the marks or, an equivalent grade
of B in the 7 point scale with latter
grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the
Master's degree level, in the relevant
subject from an Indian University, or,
an equivalent degree from a foreign
university.
Besides fulfilling the above
qualifications, candidates should have
cleared the eligibility test (NET) for
lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR
or similar test accredited by the UGC.
Note: NET shall remain the
compulsory requirement for
appointment as Lecturer even for
candidates having Ph.D. degree.
However, the candidates who have
completed M. Phil. Degree or have
10
submitted Ph.D. thesis in the
concerned subject up to 31st
December, 1993, are exempted from
appearing in the NET examination.”
16. As noted above, the abovementioned
regulations were amended and amendments dated
11.7.2009 were relevant whereas the note as
contained in Regulation 1.3.3 was substituted by
following:
“NET/SLET shall remain the minimum
eligibility condition for recruitment
and appointment of Lecturers in
Universities /Colleges/Institutions.
Provided, however, that
candidates, who are or have been
awarded Ph.D. Degree in compliance of
the “University Grants
Commission(minimum standards and
procedure for award of Ph.D Degree),
Regulation 2009, shall be exempted
from the requirement of the minimum
eligibility condition of NET/SLET for
recruitment and appointment of
Assistant Professor or equivalent
positions in Universities/Colleges
/Institutions.”
17. It has to be noticed that the amendment as
made in the minimum qualification, now provides
11
that the exemption from NET shall be given to
the Ph.D. degree holders, only when Ph.D.
degree has been awarded to them in compliance
with the Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
Standards and Procedure). The above provision
thus, made it mandatory that for lecturers NET
qualification is necessary and exemption shall
be granted to those Ph.D. degree holders who
have obtained Ph.D. degree in accordance with
the Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards
and Procedure). The purpose and object of the
above amendments in both Regulations 2009 of
UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure) as well
as Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment) is not far to
seek. There has been challenge to amendments
made in Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment)in so far as it
denied the benefit to Ph.D degree holders who
had obtained Ph.D prior to 11.7.2009. Writ
Petitions were filed in different High Courts
12
challenging the regulations on different
grounds including that regulations are
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 which
discriminate the Ph.D. degree holders who have
obtained Ph.D. degree prior to 11.7.2009 and
those who obtained the degree after 11.7.2009
in accordance with Regulations 2009 of UGC on
Minimum Standards and Procedure.
18. The challenge to regulations were repelled
by different High Courts whereas Allahabad High
Court vide its judgment dated 6.4.2012 in Dr.
Ramesh Kumar Yadav and Another versus
University of Allahabad and Others has upheld
the challenge. Appeals were filed against the
judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, Delhi
High Court and Madras High Court by the
candidates whose writ petitions were dismissed
as well as against the judgment of the
Allahabad High Court dated 06.04.2012,
upholding the contention of the candidates.
This Court decided all the appeals by its
13
judgment reported in P. Susheela and Others
versus University Grants Commission and Others,
(2015) 8 SCC 129. This Court upheld the
judgment of the High Courts of Rajasthan,
Madras and Delhi and set aside the judgment of
the Allahabad High Court dated 6.4.2012,
upholding that the amendments made in
Regulations 2009 of UGC(Minimum Qualifications
for Appointment) were valid and there is a
valid classification between the candidates who
have obtained degree prior to Regulations 2009
of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure) and
those who obtained the degree in accordance
with the abovesaid regulation.
19. Thus, rejecting the contention of the
private respondent, following was laid down in
paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 18:
“16. Similar is the case on facts
here. A vested right would arise only
if any of the appellants before us had
actually been appointed to the post of
Lecturer/Assistant Professors. Till
that date, there is no vested right in
any of the appellants. At the highest,
14
the appellants could only contend that
they have a right to be considered for
the post of Lecturer/Assistant
Professor. This right is always
subject to minimum eligibility
conditions, and till such time as the
appellants are appointed, different
conditions may be laid down at
different times. Merely because an
additional eligibility condition in
the form of a NET test is laid down,
it does not mean that any vested right
of the appellants is affected, nor
does it mean that the regulation
laying down such minimum eligibility
condition would be retrospective in
operation. Such condition would only
be prospective as it would apply only
at the stage of appointment. It is
clear, therefore, that the contentions
of the private appellants before us
must fail.
17. One of the learned counsel for the
petitioners argued, based on the
language of the direction of the
Central Government dated 12112008
that all that the Government wanted
UGC to do was to "generally" prescribe
NET as a qualification. But this did
not mean that UGC had to prescribe
this qualification without providing
for any exemption. We are unable to
accede to this argument for the simple
reason that the word "generally"
precedes the word "compulsory" and it
is clear that the language of the
direction has been followed both in
letter and in spirit by the UGC
regulations of 2009 and 2010.
15
18. The arguments based on Article
14 equally have to be rejected. It is
clear that the object of the
directions of the Central Government
read with the UGC Regulations of
2009/2010 are to maintain excellence
in standards of higher education.
Keeping this object in mind, a minimum
eligibility condition of passing the
national eligibility test is laid
down. True, there may have been
exemptions laid down by UGC in the
past, but the Central Government now
as a matter of policy feels that any
exemption would compromise the
excellence of teaching standards in
universities/ colleges/institutions
governed by the UGC. Obviously, there
is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory
in this in fact it is a core
function of UGC to see that such
standards do not get diluted.”
20. Thus, from the above judgment, it is clear
that NET qualification is now minimum
qualification for appointment of Lecturer and
exemption granted to M.Phil. degree holders
have been withdrawn and exemption is allowed
only to those Ph.D. degree holders who have
obtained the Ph.D. degree in accordance with
11.7.2009 regulations, namely, Regulations 2009
of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure).
16
Although, this aspect has not been noticed by
the High Court but since the learned Single
Judge has directed the consideration of the
case of the writ petitioner on the basis of
M.Phil. degree which was obtained by them by
distance education mode prior to 2009, it is
necessary that their eligibility for the post
be examined taking into consideration the
Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Qualifications
for Appointment). The advertisement and
selection for Guest Lecturers having been
conducted in the year 2012 when both the
Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and
Procedure) and Regulations 2009 of UGC(Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment) were
applicable.
21. There is nothing on the record as to
whether after the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, writ petitioners' result was
declared and they were selected or appointed.
This Court has also passed an interim order of
17
16.08.2013 staying the operation of the
judgment of the High Court for the period of
three months. No further orders have been
passed extending the interim order.
22. We are thus of the view that judgment of
the High Court needs no interference in this
appeal, however, the appeals are to be disposed
off with the direction to consider the
eligibility of the writ petitioner taking also
into consideration the Regulations 2009 of UGC
(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment).
23. Both the appeals are disposed off
accordingly.
.........................J.
( A.K. SIKRI )
.........................J.
( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
NEW DELHI,
January 25, 2018.
