eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System (Judgment/Order inText Format)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copyonly. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

A.F.R. Judgment reserved on 10.1.2012 Judgment delivered on 06.04.2012

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 45477 OF 2011 Dr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav and another vs. University of Allahabad and others

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J. Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.

1. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are post-graduates in Sanskrit from University of Allahabad and hold Ph.D degrees fromBundelkhand University, Jhansi in the year 2009 and from University of Allahabad in the year 2003 respectively. Bothof them applied in pursuance to an advertisement dated 8.7.2011 issued by the University of Allahabad invitingapplications from candidates eligible to be appointed as Lecturers, for Guest Faculties in various departments of theUniversity including Department of Sanskrit. They were required to submit their bio-data in the concerneddepartment/faculty of law by 18.7.2011. The advertisement provided that the UGC norms will be applicable to theselections. There was no mention of the number of posts; the applicability of reservation to the posts and otherconditions for selections. 2. The selections are provided to be made by interviews to be conducted by the Selection Committee. The petitionerswere not called for interviews, giving rise to this writ petition with the prayer to call for records pertaining to theselection process and to organise the selection process for engagement of Guest Faculties/Lecturers in theDepartment of Sanskrit afresh as per guidelines of University Grants Commission (UGC). 3.By an interim order dated 21.9.2011 the Court directed the University to maintain the status quo as on that dateupto 27.9.2011. The interim order was modified on 13.10.2011, confining the order only with regard to the subject ofSanskrit. The University was permitted to declare the results of selections for other departments. 4.We have heard Shri Jitendra Kumar and Shri Chandan Sharma for the petitioners. Shri R.B. Singhal, AssistantSolicitor General of India assisted by Shri Mahendra Bahadur Singh appear for the Union of India. Shri A.K. Goyaland Shri Gautam Baghel appear for University of Allahabad. Shri Ritvik Upadhyay appears for University GrantsCommission. 5. In the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University it is stated that the University of Allahabad wasestablished by the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. It was declared as an Institution of National Importance byUniversity of Allahabad Act, 2005. Section 29 of the Act empowers the University to make its Ordinance with theprevious approval of the Central Government. Chapter XLIV deals with the part time Lecturers and Guest Faulty. TheUniversity Grant Commission, in exercise of its powers conferred by clause (e) & (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, has made the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award ofM. Phil/Ph.D. Degree), Regulation, 2009 which was amended on 11.7.2009 by the 3rd Amendment to the regulationsand which provides that NET/SLET is a necessary qualification for the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer. 6. The University Grants Commission in its meeting dated 23.2.2010 vide its agenda No. 6.04 and 6.05 had exemptedNET qualification in specific cases, however, the Union Government exercising its power under sub-section (1) ofSection 20 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 issued directions to the UGC not to implement theexemption granted by it from the applicability of NET in its meeting dated 23.2.2010. The Central Government referredto a policy decision taken by it dated 12.11.2008 that UGC shall not give any blanket or general exemption fromNET/SLET to any University or an institution deemed to be a University, unless the Ph.D awarded by an University oran institution deemed to be a University meets the same level or rigor in terms of standards and quality as laid downby the UGC for each discipline under regulations for this purpose. 7. The counter affidavit of the University refers to Chapter-XLIV of the Ordinance which empowers the Vice Chancellorthat the procedure for engagement of Guest Faculty shall be prescribed by him. The Vice Chancellor constituted aCommittee which recommended the criteria for engagement, reservation and qualification for the appointment of theguest faculty. It has recommended that the qualification for the appointment of the guest faculty shall be the same asprescribed by the UGC in its letter dated 5.2.2010. The recommendation of the Committee of Deans and Registrarhas been approved by the Vice Chancellor. The advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment ofguest faculty strictly in accordance with the regulations of UGC and the qualifications prescribed by it. 8. In the counter affidavit of Shri B.K. Singh, Deputy Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi, the entireback ground laying down the minimum standard for appointment of Lecturers/Assistant Professors. leading upto thenotification of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universitiesand Colleges and other measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010, is setout in detail, the summary of which is given as follows:- 9. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 was enacted to make provisions for the coordination anddetermination of standards in the Universities. The Commission has been entrusted with the duty to take such stepsas it may think fit for the promotion and coordination of University education and for the determination andmaintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities. The Commission has been vestedwith the power to recommend to any University the measures necessary for the improvement of University educationand advice the Universities upon the action to be taken for implementing such recommendation as well as perform

such other functions as may be prescribed or may be deemed necessary for the Commission for advancing thecause of higher education in India (Section 12). Clauses (d) and (j) of Section 12 empowers the UGC to frameregulation. Section 26 (1) (g) of the Act confers specific powers to the UGC to frame regulation regulating themaintenance of standards and the coordination of work or facilities in Universities, among others defining thequalifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the Universityhaving regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instruction and regulating the maintenance ofstandards and the coordination of work or facilities in Universities. 10. The UGC on the basis of recommendations made by Prof. R.C. Mehrotra Committee and the Vice Chancellor'sconference held in 1989, decided to hold a comprehensive National Eligibility Test (NET) to determine the eligibility forlecturer with reference to a common yardstick under its aegis. The Commission decided to supersede the UGC(Qualifications required of a Person to be appointed to the Teaching Staff of a University and Institutions affiliated to it)Regulations, 1982, w.e.f. 1.7.1983. The Commission, keeping in view the recommendations, made the UGC(Qualifications required of a person to be appointed to the Teaching Staff of a University and Institutions affiliated to it)Regulations, 1991 notified on 19.9.1991. For appointment to the post of Lecturer the regulations provided for followingqualifications:- "Good academic record with at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at Master's degree level in the relevantsubject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. Candidates besides fulfilling theabove qualifications should have cleared the eligibility test for lecturers conducted by University Grants Commission,CSIR or similar test accredited by the University Grants Commission.

However, the said Regulation of 1991 provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications can only be madeby a University, with the prior approval of the Commission."

11. On the same lines the qualifications were provided for appointment of Lecturer in Journalism, MassCommunication and Music. The possession of an M. Phil degree or the Doctorate's degree as the minimumqualification for appointment as a Lecturer was altogether dispensed with and in its place the candidates wererequired to possess the minimum educational qualification and in addition to clear the NET examinations conductedby the Commission. 12. The validity of the Regulations of 1991 was upheld by the Supreme Court in University of Delhi vs. Raj Singh 1994Suppl. (3) SCC 516. The Supreme Court held that in the case of eminently qualified men and women, the UGC wouldnot hesitate to grant prior approval to the relaxation of the requirement of clearing the test. In specific case the DelhiUniversity may seek prior approval for the relaxation of this requirement. On the requirement to clear the test theSupreme Court held:- 'We have no doubt that there must be highly qualified men and women in the country who, toserve their chosen field, would be willing to become lecturers. We have no doubt that they would appreciate thesound objective of the said Regulations and would, therefore, not consider it infra dig to appear at and clear the testprescribed thereby." 13. The UGC vide its Circular dated 10.2.1993 granted exemption from appearing in the eligibility test to thecandidates of the following categories:- (1) All candidates, who have passed UGC/CSIR J.R.F. Examination; (2) allcandidates, who have already been awarded Ph.D degree; (3) all candidates, who have already been awarded M. Phildegree upto 31st March, 1991 and (4) all candidates, who will submit their Ph.D thesis upto 31st December, 1993. 14. The UGC vide its Circular dated 15.6.1993 extended the date from 31.3.1991 to 31.12.1992 in respect ofcandidates who have already been awarded M. Phil degree by the said date and granted them exemption fromappearing in the NET. The UGC again vide its Circular dated 21.6.1995 amended the 1991 Regulations adding aproviso which reads as follows:-

"Provided that the candidates, who have submitted Ph.D thesis or passed the M. Phil examination by 31stDecember, 1993 are exempted from the eligibility test for lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar testaccredited by the UGC."

15. The UGC on 24.12.1998 issued a notification in which the minimum qualifications for appointment as lecturerincluding qualifying in the NET or an accredited test, remained the same as in 1991 Regulation. However, in case ofPh.D holders the matter was left to the discretion of the University concerned to exempt Ph.D holders from NET or torequire NET in their case either as a desirable or essential qualification for appointment as lecturers in the Universitydepartments and colleges. The notification clearly provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications canonly be made by a University with the prior approval of the Commission. 16. The Commission's experience showed that the standard of Ph.D varied from one University to another and thusthere was an urgent need for a common test with uniform syllabus to test a person's ability to teach. TheCommission again in exercise of its powers under Section 26 (1) (e) & (g) read with Section 14 framed newRegulation namely the UGC (Minimum Qualifications Required for the Appointment and Career Advancement ofTeachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 which were circulated on 4.4.2000superseding the Regulations of 1991 and the notification dated 24.12.1998. The Regulations of 2000 provided asfollows:- "No person shall be appointed to a teaching post in university or in any of institutions including constituent or affiliatedcolleges recognised under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or in an institutiondeemed to be a university under Section 3 of the said Act in a subject if he/she does not fulfil the requirements as tothe qualifications for the subjects as provided in the Annexure.

Provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications can only be made by the University Grants Commissionin a particular subject in which NET is not being conducted or enough number of candidates are not available withNET qualifications for a specified period only. (This relaxation, if allowed, would be given based on sound justificationand would apply to affected Universities for that particular subject for the specified period. No individual applicationswould be entertained.)

Provided further that these regulations shall not be applicable to such cases where selections of the candidates

having had the then requisite minimum qualification as were existing at the time through duly constituted SelectionCommittees for making appointments to the teaching posts have been made prior to the enforcement of theseregulations."

17. Subsequently the UGC in exercise of the same powers amended Regulations of 2001 by (1st Amendment) to theRegulations of the year 2002 providing as follows:-

"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 by 31st December, 1993 or have submitted Ph.D. thesisto the University in the concerned subject on or before 31st December, 2002, are exempted from appearing in theNET examination. In case such candidates fail to obtain Ph.D degree, they shall have to pass the NET examination."

18. The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India constituted a Committee under thechairmanship of Professor Bal Chandra Mungakar to review NET examination. An interim report was submitted on3.4.2006 with the recommendations that so far as the post graduate level teaching is concerned, the candidateshaving Ph.D degree should be exempted from acquiring NET qualification for the post of lecturers. As regards tounder-graduate level teaching the Committee recommended that the candidates having M. Phil or Ph.D degree shouldbe exempted for acquiring NET qualification for being considered for the post of lecturers. 19. The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India by its letter dated 13.4.2006 forwarded acopy of the interim report of the Committee set up under the chairmanship of Professor Mungekar for consideration ofthe Commission. The Commission in it's 428th meeting held on 11.6.2006 considered the recommendations andresolved as follows:- "This was examined. The Commission approved the second amendment in the UGC Regulations for minimumqualifications for appointment and career advancement of teachers in Universities and Colleges affiliated to it in thefollowing paragraph:-

'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 submitted Ph.D thesis in the concerned subjectup to 31st December, 1993 are exempted from appearing in the NET examination'.

The above paragraph shall be substituted with the following:-

'NET shall remain compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for those with post graduate degree.However, the candidates having Ph.D degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG level and UGlevel teaching. The candidates having M. Phil degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG levelteaching only'.

20. The UGC consequently in exercise of its powers under University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (SecondAmendment) Regulations, 2006 provided as follows:-

"NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer for those with Post-Graduate Degree.However, the candidates having Ph. D. Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG level and UGlevel teaching. The candidates having M. Phil Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG levelteaching only"

21. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Governmentof India by it's letter dated 21.2.2008 sent a copy of the final report of the Review committee on National EligibilityTest submitted by Prof. Bhalchandra Mungekar, Chairman of the Committee and Member of the PlanningCommission and requested the UGC to furnish its comments on the recommendations. The summary of theserecommendations are given as follows:-

"1. Based on the intensive and extensive deliberations throughout the country and near unanimity among academics,scientists, administrators, vice chancellors and potential candidates, most of whom would be teachers andparticularly in view of the floodgates being opened for the registration of M. Phil and Ph.D degrees resulting only intofurther deterioration of quality of these degrees, and consequently making easy entry into teaching profession of suchdegree holders, the Committee recommends that NET should be retained as a compulsory requirement forappointment of lecturer for both undergraduate and post graduate level, irrespective of candidate possessing M. Philand Ph.D degree.

2. The UGC should restructure the papers and stipulate that those who apply for JRF should at least take somecompulsory questions for JRF candidates in Paper-III.

The Committee recommends that Paper-I should be more general in nature with equal weightage to variousdisciplines. As far as possible, the questions should be domain neutral. Questions that test merely recall ofinformation should be avoided. These should be framed in such a way that the simple information is given in thequestion and the candidates are asked to analyse, interpret, infer, judge as the case may be, so that his or heranalytical and comprehension abilities are tested.

3.The essay type question should be shifted to Section-1 from Section-IV and there should be two questions to beanswered carrying 20 marks each and the choice of topics should be increased.

4.The duration of examination of Paper-III should be increased from the existing duration of 2 hours 30 minutes to 3hours.

5.The UGC should develop its own question bank for multiple choice questions. In view of the specialized nature ofexamination and the teacher/prospective teacher being the candidates appearing for it, specialized question papersare very much desirable. Selected standard reference books and authors for NET could be published for all thesubjects covered along with the syllabi, for the benefit of candidates. The pattern of Paper-III and also the procedurefor evaluation of papers be standardized through revised guidelines.

6.There is a need for special coaching for candidates from rural areas, disadvantaged sections and disadvantagedcommunities such as SCs, STs and Minorities. It is felt that as UGC may not be in a position to organize specialcoaching, it should move the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development to proposea Central Sector Schemes/Central Schemes for funding special coaching for NET urgently, to bridge the demand-supply gap of university/college teachers and to improve the overall quality and standards of higher education in thecountry. This should be an integral part of the XI plan proposals of the Ministry of HRD.

7.NET Bureau should have a Question Branch or Resource Branch with well equipped Library facilities. The UGCshould propose a special scheme for modernization of NET Bureau in the XI Plan as a part of UGC plan proposals toMinistry of HRD.

8.The UGC should constitute a separate SET Review Committee to review the requirement of and the standards ofthe SET across the country. The UGC should also lend adequate support for SETs in terms of technical expertise sothat State Eligibility Tests continue to maintain the standards of NET, in case they are accredited by the UGC.

9.UGC-NET Bureau may be converted into an independent autonomous institute on the lines of inter University Centrein order to perform its functions effectively. The Bureau should have a full fledged computer centre with adequatetechnical personnel including programmers for processing application, tabulation, analysis and preparation of dataetc.

10.It is imperative that UGC issue appropriate instructions to all universities, including Open Universities and Deemedto be Universities regarding proper enrolments for research degrees. The UGC along with other technical bodiesshould constitute a Task Force to set proper standards for the award of research degrees in the country.

11.The UGC will have to urgently devise a mechanism (i.e. transparent admission procedure, supervision, guide-scholar ratio, quality of research work etc.) to scan the system of awarding M. Phil and Ph.D degrees so that onlyhigh standard and quality degree holders get absorbed in the teaching profession.

13. The Ministry of HRD should strengthen the National Library at Kolkata where copies of all Ph.D thesis whichshould be in electronic mode hereafter are sent, for proper upkeep and maintenance of data base on Ph.Ddissertations. It is also necessary that on the lines of Commonwealth Research Abstracts, abstracts of all thedissertations with proper classification should be prepared, updated on regular basis and the same should be placedin the website created for this purpose. This should cover Ph.Ds from technical institutions also. The Ministry of HRDmay launch a separate scheme for this in the XI Plan."

22. The UGC in its meeting held on 21.5.2008 considered the final report of the Professor Mungekar Committee andresolved to note that its decision has wider implications. The Commission decided to have the views of EmpoweredCommittee for strengthening of basic science education and also the views of UGC Pay Committee. Thereafter theCommission in its 448th meeting held on 18th and 19th June, 2008 considered the final report of ProfessorMungekar's Committee and resolved as follows:- "The Commission examined the report of Prof. B.L. Mungekar Committee for review of NET and recommendations ofthe Empowered Committee for strengthening of Basic Science Research thereon and provisionally decided that thosecandidates who are already registered for M. Phil and Ph.D and complete the same upto 30th June, 2009 and 30thJune, 2011 respectively may be exempted. NET shall be essential condition for those who are having Master's degreewith at least 55% (50% for SC/ST) or more and those students with M. Phil degree also. The candidates who havecompleted their Ph.D program would be exempted from NET. However, all the Universities would be required to follownew procedure of standardization of Ph.D by 30th June, 2009, for which UGC shall issue Regulations within threemonths.

It was also decided that the views of UGC pay review Committee be sought and final proposal in it's operational formwith details for implementation be presented in the next meeting of the Commission."

23. The UGC subsequently in its 449th meeting held on 21.7.2008 further considered the report of ProfessorMungekar's Committee and the report of UGC Pay Review Committee as well as the Empowered Committee forstrengthening of Basic Science Research and resolved as follows:- "(A) 12.NET/SLET or Ph.D shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment of lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.

2. The candidates, who are already registered for M. Phil and complete the same upto 30th June, 2009, be exemptedfrom NET for UG teaching. However, NET/SLET shall be compulsory for the candidates completing their M. Phil on orafter 1st July, 2009.

1.All the Universities shall be required to follow new procedure of standardization of Ph.D by 30th June, 2009 forwhich UGC shall issue Regulation within three months.

4. The following guidelines may be kept in view while formulating Regulations for (3) above.

GUIDELINES FOR M.Phil/Ph.D PROGRAMME FOR UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS

Institutions eligible for conducting M.Phil./Ph.D. programmes

All Universities and Colleges/Institutions of national importance, except an Open University and Distance Educationmode in any University. In this regard, separate Regulations shall be issued for M.Phil./Ph.D. in Open University andDistance Education Mode in Universities.

Eligibility Criteria for Ph.D Supervisor

1. Institutions should lay down the criteria for the faculty to be a Ph.D supervisor.

2. Institutions should lay down and decide, on annual basis, a pre-determined and manageable number of doctoralstudents depending on the number of the available eligible faculty supervisors. A supervisor should not have, at anygiven point of time, more than six to eight Ph.D scholars.

3. The number of seats for Ph.D. should be decided well in advance and notified in the University website oradvertisement. Institutions should widely advertise the number of available seats for Ph.D studies and conductadmission on regular basis.

Procedure for Admission

1. Institutions should admit doctoral students through Entrance Test conducted at the level of individual institutions.The University may decide separate terms and conditions for those students who qualify UGC/CSIR (JRF)Examination or teacher fellowship holder or have passed M.Phil programme. It should be followed by an interview to be organized by the School/Department/Institution/University. Only the predetermined number of students may beadmitted to Ph.D programme.

2. The admission to the Ph.D programme would be either directly or through M.Phil programme.

Allocation of Supervisor

The allocation of the supervisor for a selected students will be decided by the Department in a formal mannerdepending on the number of students per faculty member, the available specialization among the faculty supervisors,and the chosen topic of research by the student. The allotment/allocation of supervisor should not be left to theindividual student or teacher.

Course Work

On going admitted, each M.Phil/Ph.D student will be required by the Institution/University to undertake course workfor a maximum of two semesters. The course work should be treated as pre-Ph.D preparation and must include acourse on research methodology. The individual Institution/University will decide the minimum qualifying requirementfor allowing a student to proceed further for writing the dissertation.

Evaluation and Assessment Methods

1. On satisfactory completion of course work and research methodology, which will form part and parcel ofM.Phil/Ph.D. programme, the Ph.D scholar will undertake research work and produce a draft thesis in a reasonabletime.

2. Before submitting the thesis, the student may make a pre-Ph.D presentation in the Department, open to all facultymembers and research students, for getting feedback and comments, which may be suitably incorporated into thedraft thesis under the advice of the supervisor.

3. The thesis produced by the Ph.D students in the Institutions/Department and submitted to the University will beevaluated by two or three experts, out of which at least one will be from outside the State. It is upto the Universityconcerned to have one examiner from outside the country.

4. On receipt of satisfactory evaluation reports, Ph.D students will undergo a viva voce examination which will also beopen to all faculty members of the Department.

Depository with UGC

1. Following the successful completion of the evaluation process and announcement of the award of Ph.D, theUniversity will submit a soft copy of the Ph.D thesis to the UGC for hosting the same in INFLIBNET, accessible to allInstitutions/Universities.

2. The degree awarding Institution/University will issue a certificate incorporating the afore-mentioned conditionality tothe (non-NET/SLET) awardees who will, in turn, enclose a copy of the same alongwith other testimonials whileapplying for the post of lecturer in a University or College/Institution.

(B) The Mungekar's Committee made the following major recommendations for improving the existing NETexamination:

1. A committee will be constituted to revise the syllabus of Paper-I so that it is made more general in nature withequal weightage to various disciplines.

2. The Committee shall also look into the revision of syllabi of Paper-II and Paper-III.

3. A Committee would be constituted by UGC to restructure Paper I, II and III on the pattern suggested by MungekarCommittee.

4. Necessary steps will be taken to publish the reference books.

5. The UGC provide financial assistance to certain universities and institutions for holding coaching classes for NETfor the benefit of candidates belonging to SC/ST and Minorities. Mungekar Committee recommended to strengthenthis scheme and other under-privileged groups will also be included among the beneficiaries of this scheme.

6. The UGC would constitute a separate SET Review Committee to review the requirement of and the standards of theSET across the country. The UGC would also lend adequate support to the SETs in terms of technical expertise sothat State Eligibility Test continues to maintain the standards equivalent to NET, in case they are accredited by theUGC.

7. UGC-NET-Bureau may be converted into an independent autonomous institute on the lines of Inter UniversityCentre in order to perform its functions effectively. The Bureau should have a full fledged Computer Centre withadequate technical personnel including programmers for processing of application, tabulation, analysis andpreparation of data etc.

8. UGC will develop a strong resource centre with specialized personnel in the field of library science in the NETBureau to manage the centre along professional lines.

The Commission approved these recommendations, in principle, and authorized the Chairman to constitutecommittees for operationilising the same and also for detailed examination of recommendation in respect of Sl. No. 7above."

24. In the meantime, a Writ Petition No. 4266 of 2006 and other writ petitions were filed before the High Court ofJudicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench challenging the validity of (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2006 notified on14.6.2006. During the pendency of the writ petition the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of HumanResources Development, Government of India issued an order under Section 20 of the UGC Act dated 12.11.2008,the contents of which are quoted as below:- "(1) The UGC shall, for serving the national purpose of maintaining standards of higher education, frame appropriateregulations within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of this order prescribing that qualifying in NET/SLETshall generally be compulsory for all persons appointed to teaching positions of Lecturer/Assistant Professor inHigher Education, and only persons who possess degree of Ph.D. after having been enrolled/admitted to aprogramme notified by the Commission, after it has satisfied itself on the basis of expert opinion, as to be or havealways been in conformity with the procedure of standardization of Ph.D. prescribed by it, and also that the degree ofPh.D. was awarded by a University or Institution Deemed to be University notified by the UGC as having alreadycomplied with the procedure prescribed under the regulations framed by the Commission for the purpose.

(2) The UGC shall notify the date or dates from which exemption from qualifying in NET/SLET in respect ofUniversities/Institutions Deemed to be Universities as well as the discipline for which such exemption is being grantedonly on the recommendations of a Committee of Experts to be constituted by the Commission and that the expertstherein shall be persons of high eminence in the respective disciplines for which the persons possessing Ph.D. areconsidered for exemption from qualifying NET/SLET.

(3) The UGC shall not give any blanket or general exemption from NET/SLET to any University/Institution Deemed tobe University unless the degree of Ph.D awarded by it in all disciplines or programmes meet the same level of rigourin terms of standards and quality as laid down by the Commission for each discipline under the regulations for thepurpose, and that exemption from NET/SLET in respect of Ph.D. awarded by any University/Institution Deemed to beUniversity or to one or more of its programmes/disciplines in respect of such Ph.D shall be further subject to theUniversity/Institution continuing to comply with the regulations of the UGC and shall be open to review orreconsideration by the Commission; and, such exemption shall be withdrawn in any or all disciplines or in respect ofan award of Ph.D to any person or persons, where the Commission has, on the basis of recommendation by theCommittee of experts or on the basis of any inquiry conducted by it suo moto, reasons to believe that there has beendeviation from or violation of the procedure prescribed by the Commission."

25. Taking note of the aforesaid order of the Central Government, the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench disposed ofthe writ petitions with the directions that so for as the lecturers, who were in service from 1991 onwards, the issue ofexemption to them will be covered by the orders of UGC dated 5.11.2008. Their proposals will have to be consideredand approved, as per the said decision of UGC and the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners, who are not similarlyplaced, have to be in accordance with the order of Government of India dated 12.11.2008, and that the said issue hasto be resolved by the University Grants Commission on the recommendations of the University concerned with finaldecision as per the orders passed by the Government of India. 26. The Commission in its 454th meeting dated 10 and 11th December, 2008 considered the order of the CentralGovernment on the basis of report of Professor Mungekar's Committee and resolved as follows:-

"The Commission considered the direction received from MHRD regarding exemption from NET examination for

minimum qualification for appointment of teachers. The Members expressed the view that many of the universitieshave advertised various teaching positions and are in the process of making selections. The Commission and theMinistry of HRD have been giving relaxation in the past all cases for the existing candidates who have successfullycompleted M.Phil/Ph.D and were eligible for exemption as per the existing norms. The Commission had, therefore,recommended exemption from NET for such candidates as recommended by the Mungekar Committee upto June2009 for M.Phil candidates and June 2011 for Ph.D candidates. Such a decision would be in conformity with the pastdecisions of the Government.

The Members also mentioned that the research scholars already enrolled for M.Phil/Ph.D would be covered forexemption provided they complete the same by the above stipulated period.

The Members desired that their views may be conveyed to the Government for reconsideration. However, in view ofthe directions from the Government, the Commission approved that the following two Regulations may be sent toMHRD for publishing in the Gazette:

(i) UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for award of Ph.D. Degree), Regulations, 2008 (APPENDIX-II).

(ii) UGC (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and career advancement of Teachers in Universitiesand Institutions affiliated to it - 3rd amendment), Regulations, 2008 (APPENDIX-III)."

27. The UGC subsequently by it's letter dated 3.3.2009 sent the U.G.C. (Minimum Standards and Procedure forAward of Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2008, as also the UGC (Minimum Qualifications Required for the Appointmentand Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it) (3rd Amendment), Regulations,2008 for publication in the Gazette of India. These regulations were published on July 11-July 17, 2009 supersedingthe (1st Amendment) Regulations of 2002 dated 21.7.2002, and the (2nd Amendment) Regulations of 2006 dated14.6.2006. The 3rd Amendment, which is under consideration in this writ petition, provides as follows:-

"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 "UniversityGrants Commission (minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D Degree), Regulation 2009, shall beexempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment ofAssistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/ institutions."

28. At this stage, the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India by it's letter dated 16.7.2009conveyed the following clarification:-

"(i) Those presently working as teachers in ad-hoc capacity but are not NET qualified shall be given a time period oftwo years (i.e. four attempts at NET) to qualify in the NET/SLET and during this period of two years, colleges anduniversities may be directed by the University Grants Commission not to fill, on regular basis, teaching postspresently held on ad hoc basis.

3.In order to speed up the process, UGC may delegate to universities the process of assessment of Ph.Dqualifications that are eligible for exemptions from the mandatory NET/SLET while strictly adhering to the norms laiddown under the UGC regulations, namely, exemptions to those persons who obtained their Ph.D in disciplines andfrom universities which follow the procedure of (a) admission tests for enrolment; (b) mandatory course work; and (c)evaluation by eminent external examiners.

(iii) However, where a university has, in place, a regular process of admission tests for registration for M. Phil as wellas mandatory course work in respect of M. Phil, the degree of Ph.D from such universities shall be exempt from firsttwo of the conditionalities mentioned in (ii) above. This is in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of theseprocesses at the M. Phil as well as Ph.D levels in the same university. However, even in such a situation, the othercondition of evaluation shall be mandatory. Accordingly, the UGC vide it's letter dated 27.08.2009 issued aclarification addressed to all the Vice Chancellors of Central University, State University and Deemed to beUniversity."

29. The Ministry of Human Resource Development issued another order dated 30.3.2010 under Section 20 of theUniversity Grants Commission Act, 1956 directing the UGC as follows:- "(i) That the UGC shall not take up specific cases for exemption from the application of the NET Regulations of 2009after the said Regulations have come into force, for either specific persons or for a specificuniversity/institution/college from the application of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for appointment and careeradvancement of teachers in universities and colleges )3rd Amendment Regulations, 2009 for appointment as Lecturerin universities/colleges/institutions;

(ii)That appropriate amendment to the second proviso to clause 2 of the UGC Regulations 2000 shall be made byUGC to give full effect to the policy directions issued by the Central Government dated 12th November, 2008, within30 days from the date of issue of this direction; and

(ii)That the decision taken by the UGC in it's 468th meeting held on 23rd February, 2010 vide agenda item no. 6.04and 6.05 to grant specific exemptions from the applicability of NET shall not be implemented as being contrary tonational policy.

The above said directions shall be implemented by the UGC forthwith."

30. The Ministry of Human Resource Development later on issued another communication dated 11.8.2010 regardingadhoc teachers who do not have NET/SLET qualifications directing that such teachers will be provided an opportunityof two more attempts at NET or maximum of one year to become eligible to continue in their teaching position. In thiscircular dated 5.10.2010 it was provided that two more attempts was not in addition to four attempts at NET providedby earlier circular dated 27.8.2009 rather it is a part of the same. 31. The 3rd Amendment to the Regulations of 2009 have now been superseded by UGC (Minimum Qualifications forAppointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for theMaintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010. For recruitment and qualifications by way of directrecruitment it is provided in Regulation 3.1.0 that they shall be on the basis of merit through all India advertisementand selections by the duly constituted Selection Committees under the Statutes/Ordinances of the concernedUniversity. The composition of such Committees should be as prescribed by UGC in the Regulations. Para 3.3.0provides for minimum qualification for good academic record to be 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scalewherever grading system is followed) at the master's level and qualifying in the NET/SLET for Assistant Professors.Para 3.3.1 relevant for the purpose of this case regarding Ph.D degree is quoted as below:-

"3.3.1. NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of AssistantProfessors in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.

Provided however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph.D Degree in accordance with the UniversityGrants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall beexempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment andappointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions."

32. The NET/SLET/SET is not required under Para 3.3.2 in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET accredited test is notconducted. The relaxations are provided in Para 3.4.1 for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Differently-abled(Physically and visually differently-abled) categories for the purpose of eligibility and for assessing good academicrecord during direct recruitment to teaching positions. In Para 3.5.0 a relaxation of 5% is provided from 55% to 50% ofthe marks to the Ph.D Degree holders, who have obtained their Master's Degree prior to 19th September, 1991. ThePh.D degree, however, in Para 3.7.0 is mandatory qualification for the appointment of Professors and for promotion asProfessors as well as all candidates to be appointed as Associate Professor through direct recruitment. TheCommission considered the Regulations of 2010 for appointments and the Regulations of 2009 for minimumstandards and procedure for awards of M.Phil/Ph.D degree and resolved on 27.9.2010, that since the 3rd Amendmentto the Regulations of 2009, has come into effect on 11.7.2009 and the Regulations of 2010 have come into effect on10.6.2010 and these are prospective and not retrospective in nature, therefore, all candidates having M. Phil degreeon or before 10.7.2009 shall remain exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment asLecturer/Associate Professor. It was further resolved that all the candidates, who have either obtained Ph.D on orbefore 31.12.2009 and such candidates, who had registered themselves for Ph.D on or before 31.12.2009 and aresubsequently awarded Ph.D degree shall remain exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose ofappointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor. The relevant part of the resolution is quoted as below:-

"(iii) The Commission further resolved that since both the above mentioned Regulations are prospective and notretrospective in nature, therefore, all candidates having M. Phil degree on or before 10th July, 2009 shall remainexempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor. Further, allcandidates, who have either obtained Ph.D degree on or before 31st December, 2009 and such candidates who hadregistered themselves for Ph.D degree on or before 31st December, 2009 and are subsequently awarded Ph.D degreeshall remain exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor.

Since proviso of UGC (Minimum qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers forUniversities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations 2000 remained in force until the notification of UGC (MinimumQualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures forthe Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2010, therefore, all applications received by UGCseeking exemption from requirement of NET may be considered and disposed off in accordance with the prevalentnorms/regulations.

The Commission further decided that this may be sent to the Government of India for their concurrence in view ofearlier Order No. F.5-4/2005-U.I. (A) dated 30th March, 2010 issued under Section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956."

33. The Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India vide letter of the Additional Secretary dated3.11.2010 informed the Commission regarding the view of the Government and their inability to agree to the decisionof the Commission. Consequently as on date a candidate seeking appointment to the post of Lecturer must fulfill theminimum qualifications prescribed by the UGC as contained in the UGC Regulations. 34. Shri Ritvik Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for University Grants Commission has referred to the judgmentby the Apex Court in University of Delhi v. Raj Singh (supra), the judgment of Madras High Court as well as Delhi HighCourt. The High Court of Madras dismissed the writ petition repelling the challenge in upholding the validity of theUGC (3rd Amendment) Regulations and the Delhi High Court in All India Researchers' Coordination Committee andothers vs. Union of India & others upheld the validity of UGC (3rd Amendment) Regulations 2009 which make NET asessential qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor. He has also relied upon University Grants Commissionvs. Sadhna Chaudhary and others JT 1996 (9) SC 234 in which it was held that the choice of a date as a basis forclassification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless itis shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that when it is seen that a lineor a point there must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of thelegislature or it's delegate must be accepted unless it can be said that it is very wide of the reasonable mark.

35. On the interpretation of the expression "who are or have been awarded Ph.D Degree" in the 3rd Amendment tothe Regulations of 2009, it is submitted that it contemplates Ph.D degrees awarded in compliance and/or inconformity with the UGC Regulations of 2009 for laying down minimum standard and procedure for award of Ph.Ddegree. So far as Ph.D degrees already awarded is concerned, the classification is defended on the grounds thatthose presently working as teachers in adhoc capacity but are not NET qualified shall be given a time period of twoyears (four attempts at NET) to qualify in the NET/SLET and during this period of two years, the Colleges andUniversities may be directed by the UGC not to fill on regular basis teaching posts presently held on adhoc basis andfurther in order to speed up the process, the UGC may delegate to the Universities the process of assessment ofPh.D qualifications that are eligible for exemptions from the mandatory NET/SLET while strictly adhering to the normslaid down under the UGC regulations, namely, exemptions to those persons, who obtained their Ph.D in disciplinesand from Universities which follow the procedure of (a) admission tests for enrolment; (b) mandatory course work; and(c) evaluation by eminent external examiners. Further where a University has in place a regular process of admissiontest for registration for M. Phil as well as mandatory course work in respect of M. Phil, the degree of Ph.D from suchuniversities shall be exempt from first two of the conditionalities, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of theseprocesses at the M. Phil and Ph.D levels in the same University. Even in such a situation, the other condition ofevaluation shall be mandatory. The clarifications have been addressed by UGC vide its letter dated 27.8.2009 to allthe Vice Chancellors of the Central Universities, State Universities and Deemed Universities. 36. It is stated that in the year 2009 the UGC constituted an Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. S.P.Thyagarajan regarding identification of the Universities whose Ph.D may be in accordance with the UGC norms. TheCommittee held its meeting on 5.11.2009 and resolved as follows:-

"Accordingly, the members discussed at length and evolved the following formula:-

1. All those candidates, who have registered for Ph.D in any University (recognized by UGC) after 11th July, 2009which is the date of publication of the regulation in the Gazette, shall strictly adhere to the provision specified in theregulations. They shall incorporate the requirements whatever the deficiency in their existing Ph.D norms and fullycomply with UGC Regulations.

2. For those candidates, who are registered in Universities prior to 11th July, 2009, the committee resolved to followthe following criteria for evaluation of the applications made by the various universities along with duly filled inproforma of UGC along with their respective university's Ph.D regulations.

1. Admission by entrance test or interview or both. 2. Maximum numbers, M. Phills:5, Ph.D:8/Supervisor. 3. National/Reservation Policy. 4. Course work/Research Methodology Theory. 5. Research Advisory Committee-Review of the progress. 6. Part-I, methodology exam. 7. Pre-Ph.D presentation before synopsis submission. 8. Publication of at least 1 paper before thesis submission. 9. Presentation of 2 papers in conferences or seminar. 10. Evaluation of thesis by two experts other than supervisor, one out of the State. 11. Soft copy of the thesis in the University.

It was further resolved that out of 11 criteria, if the university has satisfied any 6 of them, it was decided torecommend such universities for exemption for the candidates registered under them and hence, such Ph.Dcandidates would become eligible for NET exemption as and when they acquired their Ph.D Degree from thoseuniversities."

37. The UGC in its meeting dated 8.7.2011 considered the issue arising out of the minutes of the StandingCommittee on the UGC Regulations of 2009 and decided as follows:-

"1. An open university may be permitted to conduct M. Phil/Ph.D programmes through distant education modesubject to the condition that it does so strictly as per the provision of the UGC Regulations, 2009.

(iii)The 11 points criteria laid down by the Standing Committee on M. Phil/Ph.D Regulations, 2009 may be uploadedon UGC website and also circulated to all institutions of higher education for information and further action.

2.For undertaking Ph.D under the distance education mode, the principal guide should be from within the openuniversity and a joint guide, wherever necessary, may be from outside the university. However a teacher should nothave more than 2 candidates under his supervision as a joint guide.

3.The Regulations, 2009 are silent with regard to academic, administrative and infrastructure requirements to befulfilled by a university for offering M. Phil/Ph.D programms and there is a need for these to be spelled out clearly inthe regulations.

4.Amendments required in the UGC Regulations may be made accordingly and steps necessary for their notificationmay be taken."

38.In paragraph-37 of the counter affidavit of Shri B.K. Singh, Deputy Secretary, University Grants Commission it isstated that in view of the above decision of the Commission the UGC has constituted a Committee which has heldone meeting so far.

39. From these background details given in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of University Grants Commission, we

find that in the Regulations of 2010, the NET/SLET/SET is the essential requirement for appointment asLecturer/Assistant Professor. The M. Phil and Ph.D degrees for Under-Graduate and Post Graduate Courses are notsufficient as prescribed by the UGC. The issue, however, has not been fully resolved between the UGC and theCentral Government regarding insistence on NET/SLET/SET as the only qualification for appointment. For those, whoare not selected and registered and are not pursuing Ph.D in accordance with the Regulations of 2009, the 11 pointcriteria has been laid down by the Standing Committee of UGC, out of which 06 points have to be satisfied forexemption for the candidates registered under them; only such Ph.D candidates would become eligible forexemptions from NET/SLET as and when they acquire their Ph.D from those universities. 40. Shri R.B. Singhal, Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri M.B. Singh has relied upon the avermentsin the counter affidavit of Shri R.R. Meena, Under Secretary in the Department of Higher Education, Ministry ofHuman Resources Development filed on behalf of Union of India. In this counter affidavit, it is stated that a ReviewCommittee, to review the National Eligibility Test under Prof. B. Mungekar was constituted by the Central Governmentto study its utility, effectiveness and continuation. Based on the interim report of the Committee, the UGC amendedthe regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment and career advancement of Lecturers, Readers andProfessors in Universities and Colleges making NET as essential qualification, while those with Ph.D qualificationwere not required to qualify NET to be eligible for teaching position. The regulations came into effect w.e.f. 14.6.2006.In the final report of the Committee after considering all the factors it was recommended that the NET should beretained as a requirement for appointment of lecturer for instruction at both under-graduate and post-graduate levelirrespective of the candidates possessing M. Phil or Ph.D degree. 41. In pursuance to interim directions in Writ Petition No. 4266 of 2006 (Bhupesh Marotrao Mude and ors vs. theUnion of India &others) filed in the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), in order to promote standard of highereducation, a direction was issued under Section 20 (2) of the UGC Act, 1956 on 12.11.2008 directing the UGC toframe appropriate regulations prescribing that NET/SLET shall generally be compulsory for all persons appointed tothe teaching positions and only those persons, who possess degree of Ph.D after having been enrolled/admitted to aprogramme notified by the UGC to be inconformity with the procedure of standardization of Ph.D prescribed by itunder regulations were exempted. 42. Consequent to the policy directives issued by the Central Government, the (3rd Amendment) Regulations of 2009,were notified on 11.7.2009. These regulations are prospective in nature in so far as they apply to appointments madeor proposed to be made after the date of notification i.e. 11th July, 2009. The candidate having Ph.D in accordancewith the UGC Regulation, 2009 can only be exempted from NET for appointment. In order to give some relief to theteachers appointed through regular procedures and working in adhoc capacity, who have not qualified NET/SLET norobtained a Ph.D in accordance with the regulations, four attempts (two years) were provided for qualifying theNET/SELT. 43. The UGC in its 468th meeting held on 23.2.2010 vide agenda item No. 6.04 and 6.05 considered the specificrequests in respect of particular individuals received from various Universities for granting exemptions from NET forappointment as lecturer. The UGC referred to the first proviso to clause (2) of the Regulations of 2000 whichempowered the UGC to provide relaxation in prescribed qualification in a particular subject in which NET is not beingconducted or individual number of candidates are not available with NET qualification for specific period only. TheCentral Government by its order dated 30.3.2010 issued by Shri Sunil Kumar, Joint Secretary to the Government ofIndia for and on behalf of the President of India found that the resolution of the UGC dated 23.2.2010 vide agenda itemno. 6.04 and 6.05 was in clear violation of the policy directives dated 12.11.2008, under sub-section (1) of Section 20of the Act, issued directions as follows:

"And, whereas, the Central Government has been concerned about the quality of higher education and whileapproving the revision of pay scales for the academic community consequent to the recommendations of the PayReview Committee, had notified pay scales at the entry level at sufficiently higher levels so as to attract talent toteaching through tightening entry with improved qualification criteria while liberalizing pay and other incentives inconsonance with the national policy to improve the quality of higher education;

And, whereas, the Government is of the opinion that appropriate directions need to be issued reiterating the principleof attracting quality talent to teaching as a national policy to be achieved through tightening entry into the academicprofession while liberalizing pay and other incentives;

And, whereas, the Central Government views the decisions of the UGC in its meeting held on 23rd February, 2010vide agenda items 6.04 and 6.05 as contrary to national policy;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section 1 of Section 20 of the UGC Act, 1956, the CentralGovernment hereby directs:-

(i) that the UGC shall not take up specific cases for exemption from the application of the NET Regulations of 2009after the said Regulations have come into force, for either specific persons or for a specificuniversity/institution/college from the application of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for appointment and careeradvancement of teachers in universities and colleges) 3rd Amendment Regulations, 2009 for appointment as lecturerin universities/colleges/institutions;

38.that appropriate amendments to the second proviso to clause-2 of the UGC Regulations 2000 shall be made byUGC to give full effect to the policy directions issued by the Central Government dated 12th November, 2008, within aperiod of 30 days from the date of issue of this direction; and 39.that the decision taken by the UGC in its 468th meeting held on 23rd February, 2010 vide agenda item no. 6.04and 6.05 to grant specific exemptions from the applicability of NET shall not be implemented as being contrary tonational policy.

The above said directions shall be implemented by the UGC forthwith.

For and on behalf of the President of India,

(Sunil Kumar) Joint Secretary to the Government of India."

44. The UGC in its 471st Meeting held on 12.8.2010 on agenda item no. 2.08 resolved to recommend the regulationsto be prospective in nature. The Central Government in reply to the request made by the UGC vide it's letter dated3.11.2010 signed by Shri Sunil Kumar, Joint Secretary (HE), Department of Higher Education, Ministry of HumanResource Development, Government of India did not agree with the recommendations and reiterated its directiveissued under Section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956 in making NET/SLET compulsory for teaching positions as a policyrelating to a national purpose of maintenance of standard of higher education. It is useful to quote the letter signed byAdditional Secretary (HE) to the Secretary Incharge, UGC as follows:-

"SUNIL KUMAR Government of India ADDITIONAL SECRETARY (HE) Ministry of Human Resource Dev. D.O. NO. 8-7/2010-U.I(A) Department of Higher Education Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi Dated the 3rd November, 2010

Dear Dr. Kazmi,

I desire to draw your attention to your letter addressed to the Secretary, HE dated 23rd September, 2010 in which arequest has been made to the Government to accord concurrence to the resolution made by the Commission onagenda item no. 2.08 in its 471st meeting held on 12.8.2010.

In this connection, I am desired to convey to you that said resolutions are against the letter and spirit of theregulations issued by UGC from time to time regarding compulsory NET/SLET qualifications for appointment tolecturers/Asst. Professors. The above mentioned resolution perhaps does not take into account the fact thatappointments, if any, pursuant to the date of coming into force of these regulations are bound to be prospective only.Appointments can never be made with retrospective dates. Therefore, exempting the candidates from NET/SLETrequirement, who are going to be appointed or have been appointed after 11th July, 2009 would be violative of theUGC (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers for Universities andinstitutions affiliated to it) (3rd amendment) Regulations, 2009.

Regarding the plea that since proviso to UGC (Minimum qualifications required for the appointment and CareerAdvancement of teachers for Universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 remained in force till thenotification of UGC (Minimum qualifications for appointment teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities andColleges and measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010, and hence UGC canconsider and dispose of the applications received seeking exemption from NET requirement, again is not tenable.This resolution does not take into account the UGC (Minimum qualifications required for the appointment and CareerAdvancement of teachers for Universities and institutions affiliated to it) (3rd amendment) Regulations, 2009 at all,wherein a blanket ban was imposed on non-NET/SLET qualified candidates. Similarly, since by Commissions' ownadmission, the regulations are prospective in nature and not retrospective, invoking the proviso to UGC (Minimumqualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers for Universities and institutionsaffiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 is clearly in-congruous. The present regulations in force do not have any provisionsfor exemption of candidates who are not NET/SLET qualified. In the above circumstances, I am desired to draw yourattention to and reiterate the directive issued under Section 20 (1) of th UGC, 1956 in making NET/SLET compulsoryfor teaching positions as a policy relating to national purposes of maintenance of standards of higher education.

With regards,

Dr. N.A. Kazmi, Yours sincerely, Secretary in-charge-UGC (Sunil Kumar)"

45. In paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit of Shri Raja Ram Meena, Under Secretary, Ministry of Human ResourcesDevelopment, it is stated that the quality of teaching in higher education is a matter of great concern. When the PayReview Committee recommendations in respect of teachers in Colleges and Universities were taken up by the CentralGovernment, the salaries and other allowances for teachers higher than those for the Group "A" Civil Services wereaccepted by the Government on the condition that the eligibility conditions would be streamlined and qualificationswould be in consonance with objection of having teachers of high academic excellence which would ensure that overtime the best talent comes into academic professions through a process of regulating entry and liberalizing pay andother incentives. 46. In the counter affidavit of Shri Govind Prasad, Office Assistant (Legal Cell), Allahabad University, Allahabad, it isstated that the University is centrally funded and is governed by the University of Allahabad Act, 2005, which is aCentral Act. The UGC allocates the funds and recommends the measures necessary for importance of universityeducation and advise the University the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendations.At present more than 300 posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers are lying vacant in the University of Allahabadfor multiple reasons. Chapter XLIV deals with part time lecturers and guest faculty. Under the said Chapter theUniversity can appoint the guest faculty for an academic session. In view of large number of vacancies theengagement of guest lecturers is necessary. The UGC, by its communication dated 5.2.2010, had directed theUniversity that for engagement of guest/part time lecturers, the qualification should be the same as those prescribed

for regular lecturer of the University. The University has, therefore, called only those candidates, who are eligible forthe post of Assistant Lecturer with NET/SLET/SET as per the U.G.C. Regulations. In paragraph-7 it is furthersubmitted that the Ph.D Degree awarded to the petitioners are not in the terms of University Grants Commission, asfollows:- "7.... It is further submitted that the Ph.D Degree awarded to the petitioners are not in the terms of University GrantCommission (Minimum Standard and Procedure for Awards of M. Phil/Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009. Detailprocedure for the admission and award of the degree has been laid down in Regulation, 2009 which has not beenfollowed in the case of the petitioners."

47. In paragraph-10 it is stated that candidates were called for interview for guest faculty in accordance with theprocedures approved by the Vice Chancellor on 11.7.2011 in terms of Chapter XLIV Para 6G of the Ordinance. 48. The University has also relied upon the letter of the Additional Secretary, Higher Education dated 3.11.2011addressed to Secretary, Incharge UGC and the D.O. letter sent by the Director, University Grants Commission to theAdditional Solicitor General of India indicating the aforesaid fact. It is further stated in paragraph-15 that the ViceChancellor of the University has approved the procedure of engagement of guest faculty from the session 2011-12 on11.7.2011 by the Committee of Deans, and Registrar of the University. The Committee had recommended on theconstitution of Expert Committee and criteria for engagement as follows:-

"The Committee deliberated on the following points and resolved as under:-

1. Constitution of Expert Committee for engagement of Guest Faculty. As per UGC instruction the qualifications andengagement procedure for engagement of the Guest Faculty will be the same as for appointment of regular teachersas contained in UGC letter No. F. 10-1/2009 (PS), dated 05.02.2010 reported to Executive Council. The Committeeresolved that the UGC Guidelines are to be followed in letter and spirit. 2. Criteria for Engagement: The Committee stressed that the engagement criteria must be same as prescribed by theUGC and it should be followed strictly."

49. Sections 20 and 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 are quoted as below:-

"20. Directions by the Central Government. (1) In the discharge of its functions under this Act, the Commission shallbe guided by such directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes as may be given to it by the CentralGovernment.

(ii)If any dispute arises between the Central Government and the Commission as to whether a question is or is not aquestion of policy relating to national purposes, the decision of the Central Government shall be final.

26. Power to make regulations. (1) The Commission may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulationsconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder,-

(a) regulating the meetings of the commission and the procedure for conducting business thereat;

(b) regulating the manner in which and the purposes for which persons may be associated with the Commissionunder section 9;

(c) specifying the terms and conditions of service of the employees appointed by the Commission;

(d) specifying the institutions or class of institutions which may be recognised by the Commission under clause (f) ofsection 2;

(e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff ofthe University, having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instruction;

(f) defining the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any University;

(g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the co- ordination of work or facilities in Universities.

(h) regulating the establishment of institutions referred to in clause (ccc) of section 12 and other matters relating tosuch institutions;

(i) specifying the matters in respect of which fees may be charged, and scales of fees in accordance with which feesmay be charged, by a college under sub- section (2) of section 12A;

(j) specifying the manner in which an inquiry may be conducted under sub- section (4) of section 12A.

(2) No regulation shall be made under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) [ or clause (h)] or clause (i)or clause (j) of sub- section (1) except with the previous approval of the Central Government.

(3) The power to make regulations conferred by this section [ except clause (i) and clause (j) of sub- section (1)] shallinclude the power to give retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, tothe regulations or any of them but no retrospective effect shall be given to any regulation so as to prejudicially affectthe interest of any person to whom such regulation may be applicable"

50. A Division Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 11789 of 2010 and other connected writ petitions,

considered the prayers of the petitioners to forbear the respondents from insisting on NET/SLET qualification forcandidates, who have passed M. Phil prior to 1993 for being eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professors inTamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service, and for a declaration of Regulations of 2009 notified on 11.7.2009 asarbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in so far as NET/SLET made minimumqualification for lecturer post without giving special exemption for the candidates, who got their M. Phil degrees priorto 31.12.1993. The petitioners pressed the plea of legitimate expectation. 51. After considering the entire background including the recommendations of the Review Committee of ProfessorMungekar and other experts to review the scheme of the NET and the decision taken by the Central Government, itwas held that the principle of legitimate expectation will have no application to the facts and circumstances of thecase. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource felt the need to introduce NET as compulsory for thepurpose of appointment of teaching post in order to upgrade the standard of teaching. For that purpose, the ExpertCommittees were constituted consisting of eminent experts and academicians, who recommended that NET/SLETshould be retained as compulsory requirement for appointment of lecturer irrespective of the candidates possessingdegree in M. Phil and Ph.D. after considering the report of Prof. Mungekar Committee, the University GrantsCommission was directed to frame regulations to serve the national purpose of maintaining standards of highereducation. But, the University Grants Commission, without considering the object and purpose of raising the standardof education, and without considering the global scenario, although framed regulations, but, tried to give certainrelaxation to the candidates for appearing in NET/SLET examinations. The Central Government rightly refused toapprove the decision of University Grants Commission. Hence, the regulation and the decision of the CentralGovernment cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be held to be illegal, arbitrary or whimsical, rather the decision isrational and based on public interest and also national policy to upgrade the standards of education in the country.The writ petitions were dismissed. 52. The Delhi High Court in All India Researchers' Coordination Committee & ors vs. Union of India & ors Writ Petition(C) 13689/2009 considered the challenge to the constitutional validity of the regulations dated 11.7.2009 (3rdAmendment) Regulations, 2009, on the grounds that the Central Government could not have interfered with thepowers of the UGC under UGC Act, 1956 to frame the regulations. Section 20 of the Act is a general provision, whichcould not override Section 26 (1) of the Act, which is special provision. The consistent policy of the UGC and theGovernment to grant exemptions to those, who had obtained M.Phil and Ph.D before the cut of date provided a vestedright, which accrued in favour of the petitioners. The directions of Government of India to reject the recommendationsof the UGC was arbitrary exercise of power by the Central Government and that under Section 25 (3) of the UGC Actno retrospective rule can be framed by UGC, which would prejudicially affect the interest of any person to whom suchrule is applicable. 53. The Delhi High Court expressed its opinion (para-23) that quality of teaching in higher education is a matter ofgreat concern. The standards of education in Universities and other institutions of higher learning have to be improvedsubstantially. The prescription of NET as an entry bar for being placed in order to ensure a certain modicum of qualityscreening so that persons of quality entered the academic profession. Consequently, the prescription of NETexamination cannot be called to be arbitrary. The directions of the Central Government are with regard to the policyrelating to national purpose (para-24) and consequently not only contemplated by the Act but also binding upon theUGC in terms of Section 20 (1) of the Act. The UGC's power is not a stand-alone power but is subject to otherprovisions of the Act. The regulations under Section 26 have to be in consonance with the rules as framed by theCentral Government under Section 25 of the Act. The UGC has to follow the policy directions issued to it by theCentral Government as mandated by Section 20 (1). It was held that Section 26 is special in nature and otherprovisions of the Act including Section 20 are general in nature, consequently it cannot be held that Section 26 hasoverriding effect over the other provisions of the Act. The Delhi High Court also rejected the plea of legitimateexpectation on the ground that there cannot be any estoppal against Statutes. 54. The Delhi High Court also repelled the challenge of arbitrariness in issuing regulations as various expertcommittees had concluded that there was a wide variation in the grant of Ph.D/M. Phil degrees in various universitiesregarding course work, absence of external evaluation or non-insistence of full time enrolment. A common nationalyardstick has been adopted by the Regulations of 2009. In paragraph-32 it was observed that confining the exemptionto only those Ph.D degree holders, who had been awarded the Ph.D degrees in compliance with Universities GrantsCommission (Minimum Standards and procedure for Award of Ph.D Degree), Regulation, 2009 and not extending thesame to M. Phil degree holders and every Ph.D degree holder has a rational relation with the objective sought to beachieved by the regulations. The classification is based upon an intelligible differentia and it has a rational nexus withthe differentia and the object sought to be achieved by the Rules/Regulations. It is not for the Court to question thewisdom of the policy directives of the Ministry of Human Resource and Development based on the recommendationsof the Expert Committee. There was no violation of the enabling Act or any provision of the Constitution. The NETexamination has been upheld in University of Delhi vs. Raj Singh (1994) Suppl. 3 SCC 516. In the end the Courtobserved in its judgment dated 6.12.2010 that the Regulations of 2009 are in no way retrospective in nature. They areprospective inasmuch as they apply to appointments made or proposed to be made after the date of notification anddo not apply to appointments made on regular basis prior to the said date. The writ petitions were dismissed. 55. In Dr. Gaurav Kumar Singh and others vs. Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University and others Writ A No.59208 of 2010 decided on 1.12.2010 this Court considered the question of grant of exemption as the petitioners werenot awarded Ph.D degrees in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the University Grants Committee(Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M. Phil/Ph.D Degree) Regulation, 2009 relying upon the 472ndMeeting of the UGC, in which it was resolved that the UGC Regulations of 2009/2010 are prospective and notretrospective in nature and its resolution that all candidates having M. Phil degree on or before July 10, 2009 shallremain exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor andafter considering that the 3rd Amendment Regulations dated 7.11.2009 provided the cut of date initially as 31.3.2009and was thereafter extended to 7.11.2009 allowed the writ petition on the ground that when the UGC had itself madethe procedure for award of M. Phil/Ph.D degree prospective in application, the University could not have insisted uponqualification in accordance with the Regulations of 2009. It was held that all those persons, who were registered andhave completed Ph.D course prior to 7.11.2009 could not be subjected to hostile and invidious discrimination, theirPh.D degrees have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of considering exemption from NET/SLET forappointment as Lecturer/Assistant Director in the University Sports Board of Banaras Hindu University upto the date

of enforcement of the UGC Regulations of 2009. 56. It is apparent from the judgment that the decision taken by the Central Government on 3.11.2010 was not placedbefore the Court by which under Section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956 the Central Government had not approved theresolution of the Commission on item No. 2.08 in its 471st Meeting held on 12.8.2010, and in which the CentralGovernment had clarified that appointments are never made with retrospective dates and since the Commission onown admission the Regulations are prospective in nature, invoke the proviso to the Regulations of 2000 was clearlyincongruous, the Central Government further reasoned that the present regulations do not have any provisions forexemption of candidates, who are not NET/SLET qualified. 57. From the aforesaid discussion, we find that whereas the UGC has been requesting and recommending that theinsistence on NET/SLET/SET qualifications and the award of Ph.D in accordance with the procedures prescribed foradmission, evaluation and other conditions in the 3rd Amendment to the Regulations of 2009, should not be insistedfor those, who have completed the M. Phil/Ph.D degree prior to the enforcement of the Regulations of 2009, theCentral Government has, in order to maintain the quality of teaching and reiterating the conditions on which the payscales of teachers were increased over and above Group 'A' services, insisted that there should be no exemptionsgiven to such persons. The Central Government has also pointed out that all those persons having M. Phil/Ph.Ddegrees awarded in accordance with the procedures prescribed prior to the 3rd Amendment to the Regulations of2009, were given two years moratorium to acquire NET/SLET/SET qualifications. The Central Government has alsonot agreed to the recommendations of UGC to exempt M. Phil/Ph.D in specific cases from NET/SLET/SETqualifications and has insisted upon strict adherence to the cut of date. 58. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the policy directives dated 12.11.2008, 16.7.2009,30.3.2010 and 3.11.2010 issued by the Central Government under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act overrulingthe recommendations of UGC are in violation of the scheme of the UGC Act, 1956, which has constituted the UGC asan expert body for maintaining standard in higher education. The power to make regulations for defining thequalifications, that should ordinarily be required by any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University,having regard to the branch of education, in which he is expected to give instruction under Section 26 (1) (e), hasbeen specially entrusted to the Commission. The regulations are not required to be made under sub-section (2) underclause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (h) or clause (i) or clause (j) of sub-section (1) exceptwith the previous approval of the Central Government. The Parliament has not expressly included clause (e), clause(f), clause (g), in sub-section (2) of Section 26, which provides for defining the qualification. In these matters includingdefining the qualifications, that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of theUniversity defining the minimum standard of instructions regulating the maintenance of standard and the coordinationof work or facilities in the universities, the Commission does not require previous approval of the Central Government.It is submitted that the directions to be issued under Section 20 (1) or to be issued by way of guidelines are confinedon questions of policy relating to national purpose. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 provides that if any dispute arisesbetween the Central Government and the Commission as to whether the question is or is not a question of policyrelating to national purposes, only then the decision of the Central Government shall be final. 59. Shri Jitendra Kumar submits that the power of making regulations under Section 26 is separate and distinct fromthe power of the directions to be given by the Central Government by way of guidelines on the question of policyrelating to national purpose. The dispute under sub-section (2) is only, that which may raise an issue whether thequestion of policy relates to national purpose or not. The Commission has, in exercise of its powers under Section 26(1) (e), defined the qualifications, which include the power to relax the qualification or to exempt in category on anycondition. The Central Government, therefore, under the Scheme of the U.G.C. Act, 1956, does not have powers tomodify or to annul the decision taken by the Commission in defining the qualifications or exemptions. TheCommission being an expert body constituted by the Central Government itself, the executive instructions of theGovernment has to be informed by the reasons given by the Commission. It is submitted that no one sitting in theMinistry has been given the powers even if it is exercised as the powers of the Central Government to override therecommendations and the decision of the Commission as an expert body. 60. Shri Jitendra Kumar submits that the petitioners have been awarded Ph.D degrees in accordance with the thenprescribed procedure. Their Ph.D degrees are in no way less accredited qualifications than the Ph.D degree awardedin accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Regulations of 2009. The best of the professors andacademicians in the country hold Ph.D degrees awarded to them prior to prescription of the procedures in theRegulations of 2009. They are no less qualified than, those who will be awarded Ph.D degrees in accordance with theprocedures prescribed in the Regulations of 2009. 61. It is further submitted that the change of procedure for admission and of the conditions under which the degreemay be awarded in accordance with the Regulations of 2009, with the object of standardising quality of highereducation, including the award of Ph.D degrees should not be taken to disqualify the Ph.D degrees awarded prior toenforcement of Regulations of 2009, and to that effect the refusal to grant exemptions recommended by the UniversityGrants Commission, turned down by the Central Government is arbitrary, and discriminatory. The Central Governmenthas tried to devalue the Ph.D degrees awarded by the Universities including the best of the universities in the countryby declaring that such degree holders are not eligible to be appointed as lecturers. 62. It is submitted that NET/SLET/SET qualifications cannot substitute the research work on which the Ph.D degreesare awarded. A simple examination cannot substitute the experience gained in the areas of research and writing ofdissertation. The wide knowledge and experience gained in research, cannot be substituted by any one writtenexamination. The NET examinations may test the knowledge but that by itself is not a substitute of research.Although the petitioners are not challenging the prescription of NET/SLET/SET examinations to be one of thequalifications, the denial of exemptions to Ph.D holders and those, who have been awarded Ph.D degree prior to the3rd Amendment to the Regulations of 2009, amounts to hostile and invidious discrimination. 63. Shri Jitendra Kumar submits that the UGC in its meeting dated 8.7.2011 had considered the issue arising out ofminutes of the Standing Committee on UGC Regulations of 2009 and decided that the 11 points criteria laid down bythe Standing Committee on M. Phil/Ph.D Regulations, 2009 may be uploaded on UGC website and circulated to allinstitutions of higher education for information and further action. The decision followed the recommendations of theExpert Committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. S.P. Thyagrajan, which had resolved that if any of six conditionsout of eleven in award of Ph.D degree prior to 11.1.2009 has been complied with, such Ph.D candidates wouldbecome eligible for NET exemptions as and when they acquire their Ph.D degrees from those universities. The

Commission had adopted sufficient safeguards for accreditation of the Ph.D degrees and that its opinion could not beoverruled by the Central Government without sufficient material. The decisions taken by UGC were based upon theopinion of experts whereas the Central Government has acted in ignoring them by an executive action without givingcogent reasons. 64. Shri Jitendra Kumar submits that the Commission had recommended for withdrawing exemptions prospectively,which means that those, who had been benefited by the exemptions appearing in NET/SLET/SET examinations, wereto be treated to be eligible for appointment as lecturer in the University. The Central Government completelymisunderstood the recommendations. It has treated the recommendation for applying exemptions prospectively, as ifthe UGC had recommended for exemptions to be applied for retrospectively. 65. Shri R.B. Singhal, Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the Central Government states that thepowers of the Central Government under Section 20 will override the powers of making regulations under Section 26(1) of the Act. Even if there is no requirement of taking previous approval of the Central Government, the CentralGovernment, being the highest decision making body in view of Section 20, can in national interest modify or annulthe decision of the Commission. He submits that after the enforcement of the 3rd Amendment to the Regulations, theexemptions have lost their efficacy. The Central Government has now fixed the cut of date, which is valid and whichhas also provided two years' time in which the persons having M. Phil/Ph.D could have appeared in NET/SLET/SETexaminations held twice a year. The request to continue the exemptions was turned down to maintain excellence inteaching in higher education. It is submitted that the Court should not interfere in policy matters of the State speciallywhere the Central Government is concerned with raising standards and maintaining excellence in teaching ininstitutions of higher learning. It is submitted by him that on the reasons given by the Madras High Court and DelhiHigh Court, the Court should not interfere in the matter. 66.Shri Ritvik Upadhyay appearing for the University Grants Commission and Shri A.K. Goyal along with Shri GautamBaghel appearing for the University of Allahabad, have taken the stand, incorporated in the counter affidavit on behalfof the UGC and the University. 67. The submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the pleadings, the statutory scheme of theUniversity Grants Commission Act, 1956, the resolutions passed by the UGC, and the recommendations of theexperts considered by the UGC have posed the following questions to be considered in this writ petitions:-

(i) Whether the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956 can issuedirections to overrule the Regulations made by the UGC under Section 26 (1) (e), defining the qualifications, thatshould ordinarily be required to be possessed by any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University, forwhich under Section 26 (2) of the UGC Act, 1956, the previous approval of the Central Government is not required?

(ii) Whether the exemption given by UGC to those, who have been awarded Ph. D degrees prior to 31.12.2009 i.e. thedate of enforcement of the Regulations of 2009, is a question of policy relating to national purpose on which thedirections issued by the Central Government under Section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956 will be binding on the UGC?

(iii) Whether the power to issue directions by Central Government under Section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956, is aspecial power, which overrides the general powers of the UGC to make regulations with regard to qualifications of theteachers to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University?

(iv) Whether the UGC as an expert body constituted with specialists in laying down standards in coordination ofeducation, can be given directions by the Central Government in its executive powers, overriding the opinion and therequest made by it to allow those, who have been awarded Ph.D. prior to enforcement of the Third Regulation of 2009,and thereafter Regulations of 2010?

(v) Whether the petitioners with Ph.D. degrees in the year 2009 and 2003 respectively, have legitimate expectationsto be considered for teaching post in the University even if they have not passed NET/SLET/SET examination?

(vi) Whether the resolution of the UGC in its meeting dated 8.7.2011 considering the report of Prof. S.P. ThyagarajanCommittee to the effect that the University has satisfied 6 out of 11 point criteria for evaluation of their Ph.D. degrees,should be made entitled to be considered for appointment on teaching post in the Universities, and its resolutions videAgenda Item No.6.04 and 6.05 in its 468th meeting held on 23.2.2010, is binding upon the Universities?

(vii) Whether the resolution of the UGC in its 471st meeting at Agenda Item No.2.08 dated 12.8.2010 recommendingthe Regulations to be prospective in nature has been misinterpreted by the Central Government in taking a differentview in the letter of the Addl. Secretary (Higher Education) dated 3.11.2010?

(viii) Whether the petitioners have a right to be considered for appointment as Lecturer for guest faculties in theDepartment of Sanskrit of the University of Allahabad for which the advertisement provides that the UGC norms will beapplicable to the selections?.

68. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 was enacted by the Parliament to make provision for coordinationand determination of standards in Universities and for that purpose to establish the University Grants Commission.The composition of the Commission under Section 5 of the Act includes a Chairman, a Vice Chairman and 10 othermembers. The Chairman shall be chosen under sub-section (2) from amongst persons, who are not officers of theCentral Government or of any State Government. Of the other members sub-section (3), (a) to (c) provides that twoshall be chosen from amongst the officers of the Central Government to represent that Government; not less than 4shall be chosen from among the persons, who are at the time, when they are so chosen, teachers of Universities;and remainder shall be chosen from among persons-

(i) who have knowledge of, or experience in agriculture, commerce, forestry or industry;

(ii) who are members of the engineering, legal, medical or any other learned profession; or

(iii) who are Vice-Chancellors of Universities or who, not being teachers of Universities are, in the opinion of theCentral Government, educationists of repute or have obtained high academic distinctions;

69. The proviso to the sub-section provides that no less than one half of the number chosen under this clause shall befrom among persons who are not officers of the Central Government or of any State Government. Section 12 of theAct provides that it shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in consultation with the Universities or otherbodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of University education and forthe determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities, and for thepurpose of performing its functions the Commission has been authorised in clause (a) to (j) the powers to inquire intothe financial needs of Universities; allocate and disburse, out of the Fund of the Commission, grants for themaintenance and development or both of any specified activities of the Universities, the Commission can alsoestablish in accordance with the Regulations made under the Act under sub-section (ccc), institutions for providingcommon facilities, services and programmes for a group of Universities or the Universities recommend to anyUniversity under sub-section (d) the measures necessary for improvement of the University education and advice theUniversity upon the action to be taken for the purposes of implementing such recommendations.

70. The UGC is also empowered to advice any authority under sub-section (f), advice the Central Government or anyState Government or Universities under sub-section (g) on any question, which may be referred to the Commission bythe Central Government or the State Government or the University as the case may be. Under the residuary powersthe Commission under sub-section (j) performs such other functions as may be prescribed or may be deemednecessary for the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental orconducive to the discharge of such function. 71. The UGC has been authorised under Section 12 (A) to regulate the fees, and prohibits under Section 12 (B) forgiving grant to any University which is not declared by the Commission fit to receive such grant; withdrawal underSection 14 from the University the grants proposed to be made out of the fund of the Commission. The right to conferdegrees under Section 22 (1) is to be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a CentralAct, a Provincial Act or a State Act, or an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 or an institutionspecially empowered by an act of parliament to confer or grant degrees. No institution under Section 23 whether acorporate body or not, other than a University established or incorporated under a Central Act or Provincial Act orState Act shall be entitled to have the word 'university' associated with its name in any manner whatsoever. Section25 confers power on the Central Government to make rules and Section 26 gives powers to the UGC to makeRegulations. 72. The powers given to the UGC vide Section 26 (1) of the Act consist with the Act and the Rules made thereunder,fall in two categories. Whereas powers under Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (h), (i) and (j), can be exercised under sub-section (2) with the previous approval of the Central Government, the powers under clause (e), (f), (g) may beexercised without seeking previous approval of the Central Government. Sub-section (3) gives powers to the UGC togive retrospective effect to the Regulations except in case of Clause (i) and (j) regarding fees, which may be chargedand scales of fees in accordance with which the fees may be charged by a college and specifying manner in whichthe enquiry may be conducted under sub-section (4) of Section 12A of the Act with a rider that no retrospective effectshall be given to any regulations so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person, to whom such Regulationmay be applicable. 73. The powers of the UGC under Section 26, noticeably do not require the previous approval of the CentralGovernment, where the UGC defines the qualifications under clause (e) that should ordinarily be required of anyperson to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University having regard to the branch of education in which he isexpected to give instructions, defining under clause (f) the minimum standards of instructions for the grant of anydegree by the University and (g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the coordination of work or facilities inUniversities. 74. Section 20 (1) of the Act falling in Chapter-IV; provide that in the discharge of its functions under this Act, theCommission shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes as may be givento it by the Central Government. This power to issue directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes,may include the policy of the Central Government formulated by it in accordance with law after adopting a consultativeprocess. This power may be used by the Central Government, in special cases, where it has decided to adopt certainguidelines for the purposes of coordination and determination of standards in the Universities. It refers to theguidelines on question of policy relating to national purposes and on which if there is any dispute under sub-section(2), the decision of the Central Government is to be final. The conflict, if any, on the question of policy relating tonational purposes is subject to the final determination of the Central Government. The nature of the power, ordinarilypresumes that it has to be exercised by way of guidelines for national purposes, and not to be utilised for overruling orsetting aside the decisions taken by the Commission on any reasoning different than the one adopted by the UGC. 75. The Commission by its own composition powers and nature of duties is an expert body and its resolutions unlessthey are not inconsonance of the national policy of education made by the Central Government, must be treated withrespect, which must be given to the opinion of experts. 76. Under the scheme of the UGC Act, 1956 the UGC as an expert body has been provided with all the powers ofcoordination and determination of standards of education in Universities. The power of disbursement of grant is tocheck the Universities, whether they are created by a Central or Provincial Statutes or recognised by the UGC for thepurposes of awarding degrees. The resolutions passed by UGC in its meeting, are not ordinarily to be interfered withby the Central Government unless they are contrary to the national policy of education and are followed by aconsultative discussion with the UGC. In our opinion the Central Government has not been given the power underSection 20 (1) to override or overrule the decisions taken by the UGC specially in respect of Regulations underSection 26 (1) (e), (f), (g), which do not require the prior approval of the Central Government. 77. There can be no doubt that the NET/ SLET/ SET has been prescribed as accredited test on the recommendationsof Prof. R.C. Mehrotra Committee, accepted in the Vice Chancellor's conference held in 1989, to determine commonstandards of eligibility for teaching posts, and its acceptance by the UGC. The Regulations of 1991 notified on19.9.1991, the NET qualification or other eligibility test for Lecturers conducted by CSIR was considered to be

essential with the relaxation to be made only by Universities with the prior approval of the Commission. In Universityof Delhi v. Raj Singh (Supra) the Supreme Court while upholding the requirement of NET as a condition forappointment as teachers to the University, put a note of caution that there must be highly qualified men and womenin the country to serve their chosen field, who would be willing to become lecturers. While appreciating the objectiveof the Regulations, the exemptions to be provided by the University were upheld. The UGC by Circular dated10.2.1993 extended the exemption to those, who have been awarded Ph.D. degrees and all candidates, who havebeen awarded Ph.D. degrees upto 31st March, 1991 including those, who will submit their Ph.D. degrees upto 31stDecember, 1993 vide its Circular dated 10.2.1993. The date was extended to 31.12.1992 for M.Phil. degrees byCircular dated 15.9.1993. Once again on 21.6.1995 the Regulation of 1991 were amended by adding a provisoexempting those, who have submitted Ph.D. thesis or passed M.Phil. examination by 31st December, 1993. 78. The UGC in its wisdom, and within its powers by a notification dated 24.12.1998 left the exemption to the Ph.D.holders from NET or to require NET as desirable or essential qualifications for appointment of Lecturers, to theUniversities with the prior approval of the Commission. 79. Once again the UGC exercised its powers under Section 26 (1) (e) and (g) read with Section 14 of the Act tomake the Regulations of 2000 circulated on 4.4.2000, superseding the Regulation of 1991 providing for NETqualifications, except where the NET is not being conducted or enough candidates are not available with NETqualifications. By first amendment to the Regulations in the year 2002, once again the UGC granted exemptions fromNET to those, who have completed M.Phil. degree by 31st December, 1993 or have submitted Ph.D. thesis to theUniversity in the concerned subject on or before 31st December, 2002. 80. The Central Government constituted Prof. Mungekar Committee to consider the desirability of these exemptionsfor post graduate level teaching. The Committee submitted its report on 3.4.2006, which was considered by UGC inits 428th meeting on 11.6.2008. It approved the 2nd Amendment but allowed the exemptions to continue for those,who have completed M.Phil. degree or have submitted Ph.D. thesis in the concerned subject. By the secondamendment to the Regulations of 2006 the candidates having Ph.D. degrees in the concerned subject were exemptedfrom NET for PG level and UG level teaching and candidates having M.Phil. degree in the concerned subject wereexempted from NET UG level teaching only. 81. The Central Government requested UGC by its letter dated 21.2.2008 to furnish its comments on the final reportof Prof. Mungekar Committee, which recommended NET to be retained as compulsory requirement for appointment ofLecturer at both under graduate and post graduate level irrespective of possessing M.Phil. or Ph.D. degree. It alsorecommended the NET Bureau to be converted into an independent autonomous institutions. The UGC in its meetingdated 21.5.2008 considered the final report and resolved to note that its decision will have wider implications, anddecided to have the views of the Empowered Committee for strengthening of basic science education and also theviews of UGC Pay Committee. This resolution in its 448th meeting on 18/19th June, 2008 was followed by 449thmeeting held on 21.7.2008. After considering the report of Prof. Mungekar Committee; the UGC Pay ReviewCommittee and the Empowered Committee for considering the basic science research, the UGC resolved that NET/SLET or Ph.D. shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment of Lecturers. The candidates, who werealready registered by M.Phil and completed the same upto 30th June, 2009 exempted from NET from UG teaching,however, NET/ SLET shall be compulsory for candidates completing their M.Phil on or after 1st July, 2009. The UGCalso resolved to follow new procedure of standardization of Ph.D. by 30th June, 2009, for which Regulations wereissued by UGC within three months. These new guidelines included eligibility for conducting M.Phil/ Ph.D. Degree,eligibility criteria for Ph.D. supervisor, procedure for admission, allocation of supervisor, course evaluation andassessment methods etc. In the 454th meeting dated 10/11th July 2008, the UGC again considered the matter in thelight of the order of the Central Government following the interim order passed by the Nagpur Bench of Mumbai HighCourt and recommended exemption from NET for such candidates as recommended by the Mungekar Committeeupto June, 2009, for M.Phil. candidate and June, 2011 for Ph.D. candidate. This resolution brought about the 3rdAmendment in the Regulation of 2008. We may observe here that even Mungekar Committee had recommendedexemption of Ph.D. candidate, who had been awarded Ph.D. degree upto June, 2011, from NET, and that UGC hastaken into consideration its recommendations, when it accepted that those candidates, who have been awardedPh.D. degree in compliance of the Regulations of 2009 to be exempted from requirement of NET/ SLET. It was notfound necessary by the UGC to once again clarify or to incorporate in the 3rd Amendment of the Regulationspublished on July 11th/ July 17th, 2009, that those, who have been awarded M.Phil, Ph.D. degrees prior toenforcement of Regulation of 2009, shall remain exempted. 82. It is at this stage that the Central Government intervened by its letter dated 16.7.2009 and made a clarificationthat those persons, who are working as teachers in adhoc capacity but are not NET qualified shall be given two years'period and four attempts to qualify NET/ SLET. It further clarified that UGC may delegate to the University the processof assessment of Ph.D. qualification that are eligible for exemption from mandatory NET/ SLET while adhering to thenorms laid down by the UGC Regulations namely exemptions to those persons, who have obtained their Ph.D. afterfollowing the procedure of admission test, mandatory course work and evaluation by eminent external examiners. Thecondition no.(iii) provided that where the University has in place a regular process of admission the degree of Ph.D.from such University shall be exempt from one of the two conditionality in order to avoid unnecessary duplication ofthese processes at M.Phil. and Ph.D. levels and even in such situation other condition of evaluation shall bemandatory. 83. The Central Government once again issued an order on 30.3.2010 directing UGC not to take up specific case forexemption from the application of NET Regulation of 2009; further the State Regulations have come into force foreither specific persons or for a specific university/ institution/ college from the enforcement of the 3rd AmendmentRegulations, 2009 and directed UGC to make appropriate amendment to the Second Proviso to Clause-2 of theUniversity Regulation, 2002 to give full effect to the policy directions issued by the Central Government on 12thNovember, 2008 (following the interim orders passed by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court), directing UGC notto give any blanket or general exemption to any university/ institution deemed to be university, unless the Ph.D.degree awarded by it, is in all disciplines or programme of the same level and of rigour in terms of standard andquality as laid down by the Commission for each discipline under the Regulations for the purpose and further subjectto the University/ institution continuing to comply with the Regulations. 84. The Central Government, thereafter, issued the communication dated 11.8.2010, regarding adhoc teachers givingthem two more attempts or maximum one year to be eligible to continue in their teaching profession. The 3rd

Amendment to the Regulation 2009 was thereafter superseded by Regulation of 2010 providing in Para 3.3.1 thatNET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition, provided that candidates, who are or have beenawarded Ph.D. degree in accordance with the UGC (minimum standards) and procedure for award of Ph.D. degreeRegulation 2009 shall be exempted from requirement of NET/SLET/ SET for recruitment and appointment of Asstt.Professor or equivalent positions in University/colleges. The UGC considered the Regulations of 2010, forappointment and Regulation of 2009 for minimum standards for M.Phil./ Ph.D. degrees and resolved on 27.9.2010that since the 3rd Amendment of 2009 had come into effect on 11.7.2009 and Regulations of 2 of 2010 have comeinto effect on 10.6.2010, these are prospective and not retrospective in nature and that for all candidates havingM.Phil. prior to 10.7.2009 shall remain exempted and all candidates, who have obtained Ph.D. on or before31.12.2009 and those who had registered themselves for Ph.D. on or before 31.12.2009 and are subsequentlyawarded Ph.D. degree shall remain exempted from requirement of NET. It is at this stage that the CentralGovernment issued the letter dated 3.11.2010 informing the Commission regarding the view of the Government and itsinability to agree with the decisions of the Commission. 85. We find that the Central Government in its letter dated 3.11.2010 virtually treated UGC as a subordinate bodyworking under its supervision and control, in observing that the resolutions of UGC on Agenda Item No.2.008 in its471st meeting dated 12.8.2010 are against the letter and spirit of the Regulations issued by UGC from time to timeand in further observing that:- "the above mentioned resolution perhaps does not take into account the fact thatappointments, if any, pursuant to the date of coming into force of these regulations are bound to be prospective only.Appointments can never be made with retrospective dates." The Central Government in its letter dated 3rd November,2010 clearly overstepped its powers under Section 20 (1) in overruling UGC, which is an statutory body consisting ofexperts constituted by the Central Government itself under the UGC Act of 1956. 86. The UGC as an expert body does not require the approval of the Central Government under Section 26 (e) of theUGC Act of 1956, in making Regulations for the qualifications of teachers for teaching post in the University. It did nottransgress its limits in making the 3rd Amendment to the Regulations. The amendment is not retrospective in natureand does not operate to disqualify those candidates, who were earlier qualified, and on which the Central Governmenthad never expressed any difference of opinion. There was absolutely no occasion for the Central Government to haveinterfered with the decisions taken by the UGC, unless there were any such clear guidelines, by way of nationalpolicy, which were violated by the UGC. 87. We find that not only the tenor of the letter dated 3.11.2010, signed by Shri Sunil Kumar, the Addl. Secretary,Higher Education in the Ministry of Human Resource Development, is contemptuous, it is also clothed with executivearrogance and official bias. The letter does not take into account consistent policy followed by UGC in respect ofqualifications of the teachers until the 3rd Amendment in the Regulation of 2009 made by it changed the procedure ofenrollment and the method of awarding Ph.D. degrees. All those, who were treated qualified for being appointed onteaching posts on entry level were not to be disqualified on the enforcement of the 3rd Amendment of the Regulationsof 2009, and certainly not by the Regulations of 2010. The UGC has powers under sub-section (3) of Section 26 tomake Regulations with retrospective effect, but in such case it can not by the plain reading of sub-section (3),prejudicially affect the interests of any person, to whom such Regulation may be (may have been) applicable. Thepetitioners were qualified and treated to be eligible by UGC for appointment as Lecturers, having been exempted fromNET, when they were awarded Ph.D. degrees and when the new procedure for admission and the method of award ofPh.D. degrees was not enforced. Their right to be considered as qualified for appointment in teaching position inUniversity could not be taken away by the Central Government by issuing directions overruling the decision of theUniversity Grants Commission taken in its various meeting after considering the reports of experts. 88. The Central Government is not an expert body, unless it is guided by the reports of the Committees constitutedby it. Having constituted Prof. Mungekar Committee, the recommendation of which were considered by the UGC, thedecision of the Central Government cannot be treated as decision of experts, which has an overriding effect or couldhave overruled the decision taken by the UGC. 89. We find that in the discussions which followed, the UGC made, looking into the unwarranted aggressive attitudeof the Central Government, appointed Prof. Thyagarajan Committee, and having considered its report resolved that if 6out of 11 new conditions of admission and award of Ph.D. are followed, such Ph.D. holders would be exempt fromNET. This recommendation was not accepted by the Central Government. 90. In University of Delhi vs. Raj Singh (supra) the Supreme Court held in paragraph-20 that UGC Act is enactedunder the provisions of Entry 66 to carry out the objective thereof. It's short title, in fact, reproduces the words of Entry66. A duty is cast upon the Commission to take all such steps as it may think fit, for the determination andmaintenance of standards of teaching. These are very wide-ranging powers and would comprehend the power torequire those, who possess the educational qualifications required for holding the post of lecturer in Universities andColleges to appear for a written test, the passing of which would establish that they possess the minimal proficiencyfor holding such post. The need for such test is demonstrated by the reports of the Commissions and Committees ofeducationists, which have taken note of the disparities in the standards of education in the various Universities in thecountry. The holder of a post-graduate degree from one University is not necessarily of the same standard as theholder of the same post-graduate degree from another University. That is the rationale of the test prescribed by thesaid Regulations. The regulation falls squarely within the scope of Entry 66 and the U.G.C. Act inasmuch as it isintended to co-ordinate standards and the U.G.C. Act is armed with the power to take all such steps as it may thinkfit in this behalf. For performing its general duty and its other functions under the U.G.C. is invested with the powersby the UGC Act specified in the various clauses of Section 12. These include the power to recommend to a Universitythe measures necessary for the improvement of University education and to advise in respect of the action to betaken for the purpose of implementing such recommendations. The UGC is also invested with the power to performsuch other functions as may be deemed necessary by it for advancing the cause of higher education in India or asmay be incidental or conductive to the discharge of such functions. The Supreme Court then observed in the sameparagraph:-

"Section 26 authorises the U.G.C. to make regulations consistent with the U.G.C Act. and the rules madethereunder, inter alia, defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required for any person to be appointed tothe teaching staff of a University, having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instruction(clause (e) of sub-section (1); and regulating the maintenance of standards and the coordination of work or facilities in

Universities (clause (g). We have no doubt that the word 'defining' means setting out precisely or specifically. Theword 'qualifications', as used in clause (e), is of wide amplitude and would include the requirement of passing a basiceligibility test prescribed by the UGC. The word 'qualifications' in clause (e) is certainly wider than the word'qualification' defined in Section 12-A(1) (d), which in expressly stated terms is a definition that applies only to theprovisions of Section 12-A. Were this definition of qualification, as meaning a degree or any other qualificationawarded by a University, to have been intended to apply throughout the Act, it would have found place in thedefinitions section, namely Section 2."

91. The Supreme Court thereafter observed in paragraph 21, that the regulations made by the UGC are madeapplicable to a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, everyinstitution, including a constituent or an affiliated college recognised by the UGC in consultation with the Universityconcerned, and every institution deemed to be a University; the regulations are thus intended to have the widestpossible application, to serve the purpose intended, namely, to ensure that all applicants for the post of lecturer, fromwhichever University they may have procured the minimum qualificatory degree, must establish that they possess theproficiency required for lecturers in all Universities in the country and this is what clause 2 of the regulationsmandated. The Supreme Court then discussed the relaxations given in the prescribed qualifications and held asfollows:-

"The first proviso to clause 2 permits relaxation in the prescribed qualifications by a University provided it is made withthe prior approval of the U.G.C. This is because the said Regulations, made under the provisions of Section 26 (1)(e),define the qualifications that are ordinarily and not invariably required of a lecturer. The second proviso to clause 2makes the application of the said Regulations prospective. Clause 3 of the said Regulations provides for theconsequence of the failure of a University to comply with the recommendation made in clause 2 in the same terms asare set out in section 14 of the UGC Act. The provisions of clause 2 of the said Regulations are, therefore,recommendatory in character. It would be open to a University to comply with the provisions of clause 2 by employingas lecturers only such persons as fulfill the requirements as to qualifications for the appropriate subject provided inthe schedule to the said Regulations. It would also be open, in specific cases, for the University to seek prior approvalof the UGC to relax these requirements. Yet again, it would be open to the University not to comply with theprovisions of clause 2, in which case, in the event that it failed to satisfy the UGC that it bad done so for good cause,it would lose its grant from the UGC. The said Regulations do not impinge upon the power of the University to selectits teachers. The University may still select its lecturers by written test and interview or either. Successful candidatesat the basic eligibility test prescribed by the said Regulations are awarded no marks or ranks and, therefore, all whohave cleared it stand at the same level. There is, therefore, no element of selection in the process. The University'sautonomy is not entrenched upon by the said Regulations."

92. The Supreme Court, having upheld the order of the Delhi High Court by which it was directed that the DelhiUniversity was obliged under law to comply with the regulations made by the UGC by way of a clarification, observed,taking note of the objections of Mr. Rao that there are men and women in the field of education, who possessed farhigher qualifications than the minimum prescribed for lecturers, who were willing to join the Delhi University but wouldbe deterred from doing so by reason of the test prescribed by the said Regulations and to which it observed that ithas no doubt that there must be highly qualified men and women in the country to serve their chosen field, would bewilling to become lecturers. There is no doubt that they would appreciate the sound objective of the Regulations andwould, therefore, not consider it infra dig to appear at and clear the test prescribed thereby. The Supreme Court alsoobserved that it has no doubt that in the case of eminently qualified men and women, the UGC would not hesitate togrant prior approval to the relaxation of the requirement of clearing the test, and in that view of the matter inparagraph-23 the Supreme Court observed that it did not think it necessary to consider whether or not the letter dated17th June, 1987 addressed by the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Governmentof India to the UGC can be said to be a directive under Section 20 of the UGC Act concerning a question of policyrelating to national purposes. 93. In University of Delhi vs. Raj Singh's case the Supreme Court was considering the objections of the DelhiUniversity to the regulations as beyond the competence of the UGC on the grounds that the Delhi University is anautonomous body, and that the Ordinances of the Delhi University, which prescribed qualifications, had to be treatedas laid down by the Parliament itself. The standard of other Universities has to be raised to the level of the standard ofCentral University. 94. The reasoning given by the Supreme Court, in treating UGC as an expert body constituted for the purposes ofcoordinating and laying down the standard of the Universities, helps us in this case in recording findings that the UGCas an expert body, required to perform the statutory functions of prescribing the minimum qualifications forappointment on teaching posts under Section 26 (1) (e) of the Act also possess the powers and duties to prescriberelaxation. The opinion of the UGC in such case has to be treated as opinion of experts and unless there is anythingto the contrary, which does not serve the national interest, it does not fall within the power of Section 20 of the Act,for Central Government to record its disagreement with such relaxation. 95. The Supreme Court has repelled that in the matters of laying down essential qualifications or in selections theCourt should not lightly interfere with the opinion of the experts. 96. In D.A.V. College vs. State of Punjab (1971) 2 SCC 269; University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govindarao 1980 3 SCC418; J.P. Kulshreshtha (Dr.) vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University; and in Santosh Kumar vs. Secretary, Ministry ofHuman Resources (1994) 6 SCC 579, the Supreme Court laid down a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate todislodge decision of academic bodies. It would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions ofacademic matters to the experts, who are more familiar with problems they face than the courts generally can be. 97. The petitioners were awarded Ph.D degrees from Bundelkhand University, Jhansi in the year 2009 and fromUniversity of Allahabad in the year 2003 respectively. At the time they were awarded Ph.D degrees, the 3rdAmendment to the Regulations of 2009 dated 11.7.2009 had not come into force. The Regulations of 2010 came intoeffect on 10.6.2010. These amendments were not made retrospective in nature, and thus all the scholars, who wereawarded Ph.D degrees on or before 10.7.2009, were exempted from the requirement of NET for the purposes ofappointment of Lecturer/Associate Professor. The UGC further resolved that all those candidates, who have either

obtained Ph.D on or before 31.12.2009 and such candidates, who had registered themselves for Ph.D on or before31.12.2009, and were subsequently awarded Ph.D degree shall remain exempted from the requirement of NET for thepurpose of appointment of Lecturer/Associate Professor. These were the views and the opinions of experts, whichthought it proper after considering the various recommendations of the expert bodies to grant the exemptions. TheCentral Government had no powers under the UGC Act to take a different view in its decision dated 30.3.2010. 98. The UGC again took into consideration in its meeting dated 12.8.2010 (471st meeting) and resolved on agendaitem no. 2.08 to recommend the regulations to be prospective in nature reiterating its decision taken in 468thmeeting. 99. The Central Government had no authority under the Act, to once again disagree with the recommendations of theUGC in its letter dated 3.11.2010. The powers to issue directions by way of guidelines are not the same, which mayauthorise an authority to cancel the resolutions of a statutory body. Wherever such powers are provided in theStatutes, they are specific in nature. The scheme of the UGC Act, 1956 has not given the Central Government thepowers to supervise and control UGC, as it is a body constituted by the Central Government itself. The delegations ofthe powers under the UGC Act, 1956 to the UGC are clear and specific and do not admit any supervision and controlby the Central Government. 100. We also find that the powers to prescribe qualifications also include the powers to provide for relaxation fromsuch qualifications, unless the relaxations are found to be contrary to the object and purpose, of prescribing theminimum qualification. We do not find any justification to declare all the Ph.D holders, who are awarded Ph.Ddegrees prior to 31.12.2009, ineligible for appointment as lecturer on the enforcement of 3rd Amendment to theRegulations of 2009. The UGC rightly found that if the candidates, who have obtained Ph.D degrees prior to31.12.2009, are disqualified for appointment, there will be hostile and invidious discrimination between those, whohave already obtained appointment with exemptions from NET/SLET/SET and those, who were either appointed onadhoc basis or had applied and would be applying for teaching posts. The persons working on adhoc basis could notbe disqualified for being considered for regular appointment on the same posts and that it was not reasonable toaccept them to appear in NET/SLET/SET tests, to be treated as qualified and eligible for teaching posts. It is in thiscontext that the UGC had recommended withdrawal of exemptions to be prospective. The Central Government did notunderstand the objections of UGC in making the resolution inoperative. 101. We do not find reference of any consultation with UGC or any expert body in the order of the Central Governmentdated 3.11.2010, refusing to accord concurrence to the resolution of the Commission on agenda item no. 2.08 in the471st meeting held on 12.8.2010. There is no explanation given in the counter affidavit as to whether the CentralGovernment made any attempt to consult the UGC, which is a statutory body consisting of experts in the field ofeducation before declaring its resolution to be against the letter and spirit of the regulations issued by the UGC itself.The Central Government acted like a super-specialist body in interpreting the resolutions of the UGC, and overruling iton its recommendations. The reasoning given in the letter dated 3.11.2010, that the appointments, if any, pursuant tothe date of coming into force of regulations are found to be prospective only, completely fails to take into account theobject and purpose of the resolution in the 471st meeting of the UGC. The UGC did not recommend the exemptionsto be retrospective nor did it recommend the Central Government to accord concurrence to any fresh exemptions tobe made prospective in nature. The limited exemptions were recommended to be prospective, with the object not todisqualify those, who had completed Ph.D largely following the norms laid down in the 3rd Amendment to theRegulations of 2009, and to avoid any hostile discrimination between the then categories without any objective to beachieved. 102. With respect to opinion of the Delhi High Court in All India Researchers' Coordination Committee & ors vs. Unionof India & ors (Writ Petition (C) 13689/2009) decided on 6.12.2010, the order of the Central Government cannot betreated as a policy directive to the UGC. The UGC had taken into consideration Professor Mungekar Committee'srecommendations and Dr. Thyagrajan Committee's recommendation in making the 3rd Amendment to the regulationsand was consistent in its approach for providing exemption to only those Ph.D holders, who were awarded Ph.Ddegree prior to enforcement of the 3rd Amendment of the regulations. The matter of allowing the persons, who wereexempted by it and to which the Central Government had not expressed any disagreement, was in tune with thepolicy decision taken by it to accept NET/SLET/SET as the minimum qualification. The Delhi High Court appears tohave fallen in error in holding that the exemptions given for a limited period until the 3rd Amendment in the regulationscame into force, would be contrary to the recommendations of the experts. The matter of exemptions was not anissue referred to nor any opinion was expressed on it by Professor Mungekar Committee. The ratio of the judgment inP.M. Bhargava v. University Grants Commission (2004) 6 SCC 661 is in favour of the petitioners as it was held in thecase that the academic matters should be left to expert bodies. The Supreme Court treated the decision of UGCbased on recommendations of an expert committee to include "Jyotir Vigyan" in the University curriculum to be left tobe considered and examined by the expert body, namely the UGC and the acceptance of its recommendation by theUGC. 103. We also do not find ourselves in agreement with the judgment of Kerala High Court in Writ Petition No. 11789 of2010 and other connected matters, annexed to the counter affidavit of the University of Allahabad. In this judgmentthe petitioners with M. Phil qualification prior to 1993 were claiming to be eligible to apply for the post of AssistantProfessors in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Education service without imposing the condition of requirement ofNET/SLET/SET qualification. The rights were claimed on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which were not foundto be attracted on the ground of reasonableness of restrictions and with its exceptions found in public policy or inpublic interest. The Central Government's refusal to the relaxation given by UGC was found to be against publicinterest and also national policy to upgrade the standard of education in the country. We do not propose to agree withthe reasoning given in the judgment inasmuch as the University Grants Committee itself had recommended onconsideration of the reports of the experts to provide for NET/SLET/SET examination as the eligibility to standardisethe quality of teaching in the country. The exemptions were provided for variety of reasons to the Ph.D holders upto31.12.2009 when the Third Amendments to the regulations were enforced. The decisions taken by the UniversityGrants Commission in its 468th and 471st meetings were not to dilute the eligibility conditions and to give away withthe NET/SLET/SET examinations as the eligibility, but to allow those, who were also given the benefit of exemptionsto be eligible for appointment. The exemptions to Ph.D were allowed to continue with restrictions that suchexemptions will be granted to only those who apply and are awarded Ph.D in terms of the strict conditions foradmission, evaluation and award of Ph.D in terms of the 3rd Amendment to the Regulations of 2009.

104. The exemptions to the Ph.D holders were not proposed to be withdrawn. The exemptions have been accepted toonly those Ph.D holders, who comply with the strict conditions of admissions, evaluation and award of Ph.D degreesin terms with the 3rd Amendment to the Regulations of 2009. The question, therefore, was not of any breach of orviolation of national policy, or of not giving exemptions to the Ph.D holder from NET/SLET/SET examinations but toavoid the discrimination between the persons, who were awarded Ph.D prior to the enforcement of the 3rdAmendment of Regulations of 2009, and the strict conditions for award of Ph.D degree brought into force for the firsttime in the Third Amendments to the Regulations of 2009 w.e.f. 31.12.2009.

105. CONCLUSIONS: 1.The Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 20 (1) of UGC Act, 1956, does not possesspowers and authority to set aside or annul the recommendations of the University Grants Commission, and theregulations made by it under Section 26 (1) (e) of the Act defining the qualification, that should ordinarily be requiredto be possessed by any person to be appointed to the teaching posts of the University, for which under Section 26 (2)of the UGC Act, 1956, the previous approval of the Central Government is not required. 2. The exemptions given by UGC to those, who were awarded Ph.D degrees prior to 31.12.2009 before theenforcement of the Regulations of 2009, is not a question of policy relating to national purpose on which the CentralGovernment could have issued directions under Section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956.

3. The UGC is an expert body constituted with specialists in laying down standards and for promotion andcoordination of University education. The recommendations made by it in the matters of qualifications and the limitedexemptions of such qualifications for appointment for teachers in Universities taken after constituting expertCommittees and considering their recommendations is not subject to supervision and control by the CentralGovernment. The Central Government in the matters of laying down minimum qualifications for appointment ofteachers in the University, does not possess any supervisory powers, to annul the resolutions of UGC.

4. The Ph.D holders, who were awarded Ph.D degrees prior to 31.12.2009, cannot be said to have legitimateexpectation maturing into any right to be considered for appointment on teaching posts in the University, withoutobtaining the NET/SLET/SET qualifications, unless the UGC has provided for any exemptions.

5. The resolution on agenda item no. 6.04 and 6.05 in the 468th meeting of the UGC held on 23.2.2010, and theresolution of UGC in its 471st meeting on agenda item no. 2.08 dated 12.8.2010 recommending the 3rd Amendmentsto the Regulations of 2009 to be prospective in nature, is binding on the Universities including the University ofAllahabad.

6.The petitioners were awarded Ph.D degrees in the year 2009 and in the year 2003 respectively prior to enforcementof the 3rd Amendment in the regulations, which came into force on 31.12.2009, and thus they are eligible, even if theyare not NET/SLET/SET qualified, if they have been awarded Ph.D degree with any six conditions out of 11recommended by the UGC prior to 31.12.2009.

106. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioners are held eligible for consideration for appointment as Lecturer forguest faculty in the Department of Sanskrit of the University, provided they satisfy any of the six tests out of eleven,laid down by the UGC, and which are made essential for award of Ph.D degree under the 3rd Amendment of theRegulations of 2009. It will be open to the University to consider from the material produced by the petitioners, thatthey satisfy six out of eleven tests recommended by the University Grants Commission for award of their Ph.D. Dt.06.4.2012 RKP/

Visit http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/StartWebSearch.do for more Judgments/Orders delivered atAllahabad High Court and Its Bench at Lucknow. Disclaimer