IMPORTANT POINTS
UGC Regulations must be consistent with the Act and conform to directions issued by the Central Government under Section 20 of the UGC Act.
Appellants, having not been appointed, have no vested right.
It is required to make NET/SLET examination compulsory without exemption.
UGC Regulations 2009/2010 are not arbitrary or discriminatory.

Headnote:(a) UGC Act – UGC regulations – Made under section 26 – Must be consistent with the Act and conform to directions issued by the Central Government under Section 20 – Section 26(2) does not bar Central Government from issuing directions to the Commission. (Para 12, 13)
       (b) Words and phrases – Existing right and a vested right – Distinction – Appellants, having not been appointed, have no vested right – Modification in eligibility conditions before creation of any vested right – Additional condition of NET test – No illegality – Such conditions, however, shall always be prospective – UGC Regulations 2009 and 2010. (Para 15)
       1962 Suppl. 1 SCR 700 – Relied upon
       (1996) 10 SCC 536; (2007) 10 SCC 306 – Referred
       (c) UGC Act – Section 20 – Central Government direction regarding qualifying in NET/SLET for appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor – Word ‘generally’ followed by ‘compulsory’ – Requires NET/SLET examination without exemption – UGC Regulations 2009 and 2010 prescribing accordingly – No infirmity. (Para 16)
       (d) UGC regulations of 2009/2010 – Aimed to maintain excellence in standards of higher education – Requirement of NET test – Not arbitrary or discriminatory – Not contravening Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 17)
       (e) Legitimate Expectation – Appellants having Ph.D. and M.Phil. degree granted exemption in the past before Regulation 2009/2010 – Legitimate expectation to continue the exemption – Must yield to larger public interest of selection of the most meritorious candidate. (Para 20)
       (2003) 5 SCC 437; (2009) 1 SCC 180; (1996) 10 SCC 536 – Relied upon
       (f) Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – UGC not giving effect to Professor S.P. Thyagarajan Committee report – Allahabad High Court giving effect to it in its directions – Not sustainable – The judgment set aside in entirety. (Para 23)
       (g) Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – Binding precedent – Division Bench of High Court arriving at conclusion opposite to one arrived by earlier Division Bench – That too by referring to selected passages – Decision of co-ordinate Bench is binding – In case of difference of opinion, matter ought to be referred to larger Bench – Matter distressing. (Para 240
       Facts of the case:
       In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 26(1)(e) of the UGC Act, the UGC framed regulations in 1982 prescribing the qualification for the teaching post of Lecturer in colleges.
       In pursuance of the directive from Central Government, the UGC promulgated the impugned Regulations of 2009.
       This was followed by another directive dated 30th March, 2010 by the Ministry under Section 20
       Pursuant to this directive, on 30th June, 2010, the UGC framed Regulations of 2010.
       By two resolutions dated 12th August, 2010 and 27th September, 2010, the UGC opined that since the regulations are prospective in nature, all candidates having M. Phil. degree on or before 10th July, 2009 and all persons who obtained the Ph.D. degree on or before 31st December, 2009 and had registered themselves for the Ph.D. before this date, but are awarded such degree subsequently shall remain exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor.
       Validity of the Regulations has been questioned in these cases.
       Finding of the Court:
       UGC Regulations 2009/2010 are valid.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

Judgment

R.F. Nariman, J.

1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

2. A large number of appeals are before us in which the judgments of four High Courts are assailed. The High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 6th December, 2010 was faced with the constitutional validity of the University Grants Commission Regulations (Minimum Qualifications Required for the Appointment And Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (the third Amendment) Regulation 2009 under which NET/SLET is to be the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. The challenge was repelled saying that the Regulations do not violate Article 14 and are, in fact, prospective inasmuch as they apply only to appointments made after the date of the notification and do not apply to appointments made prior to that date. Along the lines of the Delhi High Court, the Madras and Rajasthan High Courts have also repelled challenges to the aforesaid regulations vide their judgments dated 6th December, 2010 and 13th September, 2012. On the other hand, the Allahabad High Court in a judgment dated 6th April, 2012 has found that the said regulations were issued pursuant to directions of the Central Government which themselves were issued outside the powers conferred by the UGC Act and, hence, the eligibility conditions laid down would not apply to M. Phil. and Ph.D. degrees awarded prior to 31st December, 2009. However, a subsequent judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 6th January, 2014 distinguished the aforesaid judgment and upheld the self-same regulations. Whereas the Union of India is in appeal before us from the Allahabad High Court judgment dated 6th April, 2012, M.Phil. degree holders and Ph.D. degree holders who have not yet been appointed as Assistant Professors in any University/College/Institution are the appellants before us in all the other appeals.

3. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy in these appeals are as follows:-

The University Grants Commission Act, 1956, was enacted by Parliament to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in Universities being enacted under Entry 66 List I, Schedule VII to the Constitution of India. By Section 4 of the Act, a University Grants Commission is established to carry out the functions entrusted to it by Section 12 of the Act. We are directly concerned in these appeals with two Sections of this Act, namely, Sections 20 and 26:-

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

(2) If any dispute arises between the Central Government and the Commission as to whether a question is or is not a question 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 regulations consistent 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 Commission under Section 9;

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

(e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of 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;

(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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 223

Cases Referred (6)