Back
1992 Supreme(Del) 218
High Court Of Delhi
S.M.MUKHERJI - Appellant
Versus
U.G.C. - Respondent
Civil Writ 2147 of 1990
Decided On : 04/07/1992
A.K.GANGULY, G.K.BANERJEE
The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to service regulations and maintaining standards of excellence in universities. The Court held that ad hoc appointments and promotions made in violation of service regulations could not be regularized and that the relaxation of qualifications for Under Secretaries was not justified.
Headnote:
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION - RECRUITMENT RULES - SENIORITY AND PROMOTION - AD HOC APPOINTMENTS - REGULARISATION - SERVICE REGULATIONS - RELAXATION OF QUALIFICATIONS - EDUCATION OFFICERS AND UNDER SECRETARIES - CLAIMS AND GRIEVANCES - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF SERVICE REGULATIONS - PRINCIPLES OF SENIORITY AND PROMOTION - MAINTAINING STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE IN UNIVERSITIES.
Fact of the Case:
The University Grants Commission (UGC) was established in 1956 to coordinate and determine standards in higher education and research institutions. The UGC has the power to frame regulations for the service of its employees, which were framed in 1958 and 1983. The administration of the UGC is manned by executive officers, education officers, and scientists. The UGC faced issues with ad hoc appointments, unqualified personnel, and disregard for service regulations, leading to chaos in the service and a negation of the UGC's objectives. The writ petitions challenged these irregularities and sought directions for proper implementation of recruitment rules and balancing the claims of Under Secretaries and Education Officers in seniority and promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the UGC administration was in a state of disarray, with ad hoc promotions, relaxation of qualifications, and disregard for service regulations. The Court directed the UGC to review ad hoc appointments, finalize seniority lists, and regularize ad hoc appointments in consultation with the Union of India. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining standards of excellence in universities and recognized the need to protect the claims of various sections of the administration, including educationists and scientists.
Issues: 1. Whether ad hoc appointments and promotions in the UGC were made in accordance with service regulations. 2. Whether the relaxation of qualifications for Under Secretaries was justified. 3. Whether the claims of Under Secretaries and Education Officers for seniority and promotion should be balanced. 4. How to regularize ad hoc appointments and address the grievances of affected employees.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the ad hoc appointments and promotions in the UGC were irregular and violated service regulations. 2. The Court found that the relaxation of qualifications for Under Secretaries was not justified and had led to anomalies and a humiliating atmosphere in the service. 3. The Court recognized the need to balance the claims of Under Secretaries and Education Officers but emphasized that individualistic and personal claims should not undermine the efforts to restore order in the UGC. 4. The Court directed the UGC to regularize ad hoc appointments based on the principle of granting five years of service benefit for those who had served for five years or more. The Court also directed the UGC to strictly comply with service regulations in future promotions.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the petitioners' claims for seniority and promotion based on their ad hoc service could not be granted. The Court directed the UGC to regularize ad hoc appointments and promotions in accordance with the principles laid down by the Court. The Court also directed the UGC to ensure that the claims of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes employees were properly protected.
( 1 ) THESE writ petitions raise common questions regardingthe implementation of the recruitment rules of the University Grants Commission and for proper balancing of the claims of the Under Secretaries and theeducation Officers in regard to seniority and promotion in the University Grantscommission.
( 2 ) THE University Grants Commission was established in 1956 by anact of Parliament, viz. University Grants Commission Act, 1956. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill in this regard stated that "the Constitution of India vests Parliament with exclusive authority in regard to coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education forresearch and scientific and technical institutions. It is obvious that neithercoordination nor determination of standards is possible unless the Centralgovernment has some voice in determination of standards of teaching andexamination in the Universities both old and new. It is also necessary to ensurethat available resources are utilised to the best possible effect. The problem hasbecome more acute recently on account of the tendency to multiply Universities. "
( 3 ) THE University Grants Commission has the power under the Act torecommend to the Universities measures for improvement of Universityeducation. They have power to conduct inspection of the universities for theimplementation of such recommendations. The University Grants Commissionrecognises the Universities and also confers status of deemed universities oninstitutions of higher learning and research institutes. For the proper development of universities the University Grants Commission allocates funds to theuniversities for general and specific purposes. It is the body which coordinatesthe universities with the Central Government. The University Grants Commission acts a expert body to advice the Central Government on maintenance ofstandards in the universities. The Commission is composed predominantly ofthe educational experts. The Chairman is usually a well-known educationist. Out of 10 members not less than four members are from the teachers of theuniversities and the remaining members are from the persons who are thevice-Chancellors of the Universities or experts in Agriculture, Commerce,engineering, Law and Medicine. Amongst other things the University Grantscommission has the power (Section 26. c.) to frame regulations with the priorapproval of the Central Government specifying the terms and conditions. ofservice of the employees appointed by the Commission. Such regulations wereframed by the Commission in 1958 and then in 1983. The administration of theuniversity Grants Commission is principally manned by the executive officers,such as Section Officers, Under Secretaries and by persons drawn from theuniversities and Scientific institutions. They can, thus, be broadly described asthe Executive, the Educationist and Scientists.
( 4 ) A body like University Grants Commission which oversees thethe standards of higher education in the Universities is expected to have effective administration to implement the objectives of the Act. The Officers manning such administration should have deep knowledge and experience of theuniversity functioning and its problems. This is not a routine administration butan administration with high function of improving the excellence of universityeducation by persons motivated and devoted to the cause of higher education. However, as the arguments proceeded in these petitions what was discoveredwas the total chaos in the service and complete negation of the higher purposefor which the University Grants Commission was established. It was seen thatthe appointments were made in total disregard of the service regulations. Unqualified people were appointed at various rungs of the administration. Ad hocpromotions were made almost as a matter of rule. Sometimes even two orthree ad hoc promotions one after another were given to same person. Theappointments so made had no co
