SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Chh) 250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL, JJ.
Vivek Naware, S/o Shri Shripad J. Naware – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Writ Petition (S) No.5078 of 2020
Decided on : 16-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
The prerogative of the employer to prescribe qualifications for a post and the limited scope for judicial interference in such matters.

Headnote:

Discrimination - University Grants Commission Regulations - 6.4(C)(I)(i) - The court discussed the constitutional validity of clause 6.4(C)(I)(i) of the UGC Regulations of 2018 and found it not to be discriminatory or violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition and seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of clause 6.4(C)(I)(i) of 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 (for short, ‘the UGC Regulations of 2018’), on the ground that same is discriminatory and violative of his fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner has Masters Degree in Music and he has also cleared NET examination conducted by the University Grants Commission (UGC). He is an “A” Grade artist of All India Radio. On 16-5-2016, he was appointed as Assistant Professor in respondent No.3 University in the Department of Instrumental Music (Sarod) and after completion of one year probation, he became permanent with effect from 26-5-2017. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the UGC Regulations of 2018, under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for University Teachers, for promotion on the post of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) from the post of Assistant Professor (entry level), the eligibility criteria has been fixed that, those who have completed 4 years of service with Ph.D. or 5 years of service with M.Phil etc. or 6 years of service in case of those without Ph.D./M.Phil/P.G. degree in professional courses and also satisfy other conditions enshrined therein, would be entitled for promotion. Though the petitioner is having all the eligibility criteria to be promoted in the next level i.e. Level 11, but since he had not completed 6 years of service as Assistant Professor (Level 10), his case was not considered, whereas, those who possess Ph.D. have been given the benefit of CAS. It is the further case of the petitioner that at the time of recruitment, there was no requirement of having Ph.D. for the post of Assistant Professor under the category of “Music, Performing Arts, Visual Arts and other Traditional Indian Art Forms like Sculpture, etc.” for the candidates qualifying clause 4.4.2.1 (second part) of 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, 2010, then giving benefit of Ph.D. over the non-Ph.D. holder for promotions under the CAS is discriminatory and as such, it is violative of his right guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

3. Return has been filed by the State/respondent No.1 and also by the University Grants Commission/respondent No.2 opposing the averments made in the writ petition stating inter alia that the UGC Regulations of 2018, which have been called in question, is strictly in accordance with law and challenge in this behalf is liable to be rejected.

4. Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that clause 6.4(C)(I)(i) of the UGC Regulations of 2018 is discriminatory and violative of the petitioner’s right under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that the petitioner is having higher proficiency in the Instrument (Sarod) rather than academic qualification (Ph.D.) and his practical knowledge and experience will always have higher place as against Ph.D. He would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of State of J. and K. v. Triloki Nath Khosa, AIR 1974 SC 1, Venkateshwara Theatre v. State of A.P., AIR 1993 SC 1947 and Dev Gupta v. PEC University of Technology and others, AIR 2023 SC 3723 to support his submission.

5. Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, learned counsel appearing for the UGC/respondent No.2, would support the impugned Regulation and submit that prescription of educational qualification for promotional post is the prerog

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top