Clarificatory notifications regarding academic standards that make implicit regulatory requirements explicit operate retrospectively. Consequently, research degrees obtained in violation of mandatory supervisor eligibility criteria are invalid for seeking service benefits, though employees cannot be terminated without due process despite failing to meet specified qualification thresholds.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Mazumdar, J.

Heard Mr. K.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the writ petitions. Mr. K. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, appears for the Department of Higher Education in all the writ petitions. Dr. A. Chamuah, learned standing counsel, appears for the UGC in WP(C) No. 4721/2021 and WP(C) No. 6543/2021, and Dr. P. Agarwal, learned standing counsel, appears for the UGC in WP (C) No. 556/2024. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel, appears for respondent no.4 in WP(C) No. 4721/2021, and Mr. P. Hazarika, learned counsel, appears for respondent nos.3 And 4 in WP(C) No. 556/2024.

2. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the the condition incorporated in the orders granting them each regularisation in services insofar as the orders require the petitioner s to qualify in the NET/SLET/Ph.D. within 2 years, failing which their services were to be discontinued and till which time, they would be entitled to get a fixed pay only. Although the petitioners have challenged the respective orders passed concerning each of the petitioners, all the orders are dated 24.5.2018, and are worded identically, save and except for a difference in the description of the petitioners and the posts in which they were regularised.

3. It is the common stand of the petitioners that they had acquired the PhD degree before the orders of regularisation being passed, while the uniform stand of the respondents in all the petitions is that the doctorate degrees were obtained in violation of the relevant University Grants Commission Regulations, and therefore cannot be recognized as valid PhD degrees.

4. The facts relating to each of the petitioners are listed below:

A. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 6543/2021

The petitioner had qualified the High School Leaving Certificate Examination in 1987 and had qualified the Higher Secondary examination in 1989. She acquired her Bachelor of Arts Degree in 1992, and she obtained her Master's Degree in Arts in 1996.

Pursuant to a selection process conducted by the authorities of Sarupathar College, in which the petitioner had participated, the petitioner was offered the post of Lecturer in the said College against a non-sanctioned post on an honorary basis by the appointment order dated 23.08.1999. The petitioner accordingly joined on 26.08.1999 and has been serving the College uninterruptedly to date. When the petitioner wanted to pursue her Ph.D., the Principal of the College issued a No Objection Certificate releasing her from College duty to pursue her Ph.D. at Singhania University, Rajasthan. Accordingly, the petitioner got herself registered provisionally with the Singhania University for the Session 2009. The petitioner thereafter pursued her Ph.D. with one Dr. Munirul Hussain as her guide. By the notification dated 31.12.2013, the petitioner was declared eligible for the award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by the Singhania University. The provisional Degree of Ph.D. in Education was awarded to the petitioner by the Singhania University on 24.01.2014.

B. WP(C)/4721/2021

The petitioner in this petition had qualified the High School Leaving Certificate examination in 1998