1. Dispute over shortlisting for Assistant Professor posts — counting of contractual teaching experience under UGC Regulations 2018 — challenge to salary-based criteria for awarding experience marks. (Para 2 , 40 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1212
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Allahabad University – Appellant
Versus
Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 12411-12414 of 2024
WITH
Allahabad Degree College and Another – Appellants
Versus
Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12415 of 2024
Decided On : 18-12-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Saday Mondol, Adv. Mr. Pks Baghel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Nikhl Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Saday Mondol, Adv. Mr. Pks Baghel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Nikhl Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the 2018 Regulations applies to Assistant Professors, requiring prior teaching experience to be counted for shortlisting candidates.
Headnote:(A) University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - Regulations 2018 - Shortlisting criteria for Assistant Professors - Regulation 10(f)(iii) read down by High Court as surplusage for Assistant Professors - Court held that Regulation 10 applies to Assistant Professors, and prior teaching experience must be counted for shortlisting candidates. (Paras 50-50)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope - Courts cannot add or delete words from a statute; they must interpret the law as it stands. (Paras 43-43)
Facts of the case:
Respondent 1, an aspirant for Assistant Professor, challenged the non-counting of her past teaching experience under Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the 2018 Regulations, which was dismissed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's reading down of Regulation 10(f)(iii) was erroneous; it must apply to Assistant Professors, allowing marks for past teaching experience.
Issues: Whether Regulation 10(f)(iii) applies to Assistant Professors and if the High Court's reading down was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Regulation 10(f)(iii) is applicable to Assistant Professors, and prior teaching experience must be counted for shortlisting candidates.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
- statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. Whether salary-based criteria for counting contractual experience violate Article 14 — whether recruiting bodies can prescribe enhanced shortlisting norms beyond minimum eligibility requirements. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. High Court erred in reading down unambiguous regulations — recruiting authorities may adopt rational enhanced norms for shortlisting to manage large applicant volumes — relief requires specific pleadings. (Para 12 , 13 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 29 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 )
4. Courts cannot rewrite unambiguous legislation through reading down unless necessary to avoid unconstitutionality — recruiting bodies may prescribe enhanced norms for shortlisting candidates for interview. (Para 16 , 17 , 21 , 25 , 29 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court order set aside — writ petitions and review applications dismissed. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 )
6. When can a court employ the doctrine of reading down a statutory provision?
Reading down is used sparingly to save a provision from being declared unconstitutional or invalid. It cannot be used when the meaning is plain and unambiguous, nor can it be used to rewrite, recast, or delete words from the legislation to achieve a perceived better result. (Para 20 , 21 , 25 , 26 , 42 , 43 )
7. Can a recruiting authority set higher criteria for shortlisting candidates than the minimum eligibility requirements?
Yes, when selection is based on interviews and the number of applicants is enormous, the selection board may adopt a rational and reasonable procedure to fix the number of candidates for interview by prescribing enhanced norms, provided they are not arbitrary. (Para 29 , 30 , 47 )
8. Can a court grant relief in a writ petition if the specific legal issue was not pleaded by the party?
No, a court cannot grant relief in the absence of requisite pleadings. The court's enquiry must be restricted to the case pleaded and evidence placed on record; it cannot conjecture a third case based on oral arguments advanced during a hearing. (Para 31 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 49 )
9. Does the salary-based condition for counting contractual teaching experience under UGC Regulations 2018 apply to Assistant Professor shortlisting?
Yes, since Regulation 10 specifically refers to Assistant Professors and the 2018 Regulations permit counting such experience for shortlisting, the salary-based condition in Regulation 10(f)(iii) is applicable and binding. (Para 40 , 43 , 46 , 48 )
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
THE CHALLENGE
1. Assail in these civil appeals is to the common judgment and order dated 18th January, 20241 [impugned order] passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad2 [High Court, hereafter] whereby the High Court disposed of a writ petition, two special appeals and one review petition.3 [Writ-A No. 580 of 2023, Special Appeal Defective No. 187 of 2022, Special Appeal Defective No. 257 of 2022 and Civil Misc. Review Application No. 398 of 2023] All but one of the proceedings were at the instance of Gitanjali Pandey.4 [Respondent 1] The remaining one was at the instance of one Brahma Deo (Respondent 1 in Civil Appeal No. 12413/2024).
RESUME OF FACTS
2. Relevant facts, pertinent for disposal of the present appeal, are summed up as under:
(a) Respondent 1 was an aspirant for the post of ‘Assistant Professor’ in Allahabad University and its affiliated colleges. As per her pleadings, between October 2004 and March 2010 (approximately 5½ years), she worked as a contractual faculty in Jawad Ali Shah Imambara Girls PG College (affiliated to Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay University, Gorakhpur) at a monthly cash honorarium of Rs. 5000/-. Thereafter, between 2016 and 2021, she claims to have worked as a guest faculty in different constituent colleges of Allahabad University at different honoraria ranging from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-.
(b) Advertisements:
(i) On 28th September 2021, Allahabad University published an advertisement for appointment on the posts of Assistant Professors in various disciplines. A total of 4 (four) posts were advertised for Sanskrit. Respondent 1 applied for appointment on the single advertised post in the unreserved category.
(ii) On 30th August 2022, a constituent college of Allahabad University, viz. Iswar Saran Degree College (ISDC), issued an advertisement which, inter alia, invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit.
(iii) On 28th November 2022, another constituent college of Allahabad University, viz. Allahabad Degree College (ADC), issued a similar advertisement.
(c) Pursuant to all the above advertisements, Respondent 1 duly applied for appointment on the posts.
(d) The requisite qualifications for appointment on the posts of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor are prescribed by the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018.5 [2018 Regulations, hereafter] Clause 4 thereof provides for the minimum qualifications required for the post of Assistant and Associate Professor. It is not in dispute that Respondent 1 does possess the requisite educational qualifications for appointment as Assistant Professor in Sanskrit.
(e) The procedure for shortlisting candidates for interview is given in the note to Reg. 4.1, which provides for shortlisting on the basis of an academic score prepared in accordance with Table 3A (for universities) and 3B (for colleges). Hence, for shortlisting candidates for the purposes of interview, Allahabad University would score candidates as per the criteria laid down in Table 3A and the affiliated colleges in Table 3B.
(f) As per clause 7 of Tables 3A and 3B, 2 (two) marks are to be granted to a candidate for every year of his/her teaching experience or Post Doctoral experience. Since the contents of both the tables are similar, we propose to reproduce Table 3A later in this judgment.
(g) Despite Respondent 1 fulfilling the eligibility criteria, she was not shortlisted for the interview as her score did not reach the cutoff marks. This happened because she was not awarded any marks under clause 7 in Table 3A for “Teaching/Post Doctoral experience.” Her past teaching experiences on contractual basis and as a guest faculty were not counted as ‘teaching experience’ by Allaha
