eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System

(Judgment/Order in

Text Format)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy
only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Judgment reserved on 10.1.2012 Judgment delivered on 06.04.2012
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 45477 OF 2011
Dr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav and another
vs.
University of Allahabad and others
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.
1. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are post-graduates in Sanskrit from University of Allahabad and hold Ph.D degrees from
Bundelkhand University, Jhansi in the year 2009 and from University of Allahabad in the year 2003 respectively. Both
of them applied in pursuance to an advertisement dated 8.7.2011 issued by the University of Allahabad inviting
applications from candidates eligible to be appointed as Lecturers, for Guest Faculties in various departments of the
University including Department of Sanskrit. They were required to submit their bio-data in the concerned
department/faculty of law by 18.7.2011. The advertisement provided that the UGC norms will be applicable to the
selections. There was no mention of the number of posts; the applicability of reservation to the posts and other
conditions for selections.
2. The selections are provided to be made by interviews to be conducted by the Selection Committee. The petitioners
were not called for interviews, giving rise to this writ petition with the prayer to call for records pertaining to the
selection process and to organise the selection process for engagement of Guest Faculties/Lecturers in the
Department of Sanskrit afresh as per guidelines of University Grants Commission (UGC).
3.By an interim order dated 21.9.2011 the Court directed the University to maintain the status quo as on that date
upto 27.9.2011. The interim order was modified on 13.10.2011, confining the order only with regard to the subject of
Sanskrit. The University was permitted to declare the results of selections for other departments.
4.We have heard Shri Jitendra Kumar and Shri Chandan Sharma for the petitioners. Shri R.B. Singhal, Assistant
Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Mahendra Bahadur Singh appear for the Union of India. Shri A.K. Goyal
and Shri Gautam Baghel appear for University of Allahabad. Shri Ritvik Upadhyay appears for University Grants
Commission.
5. In the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University it is stated that the University of Allahabad was
established by the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. It was declared as an Institution of National Importance by
University of Allahabad Act, 2005. Section 29 of the Act empowers the University to make its Ordinance with the
previous approval of the Central Government. Chapter XLIV deals with the part time Lecturers and Guest Faulty. The
University Grant Commission, in exercise of its powers conferred by clause (e) & (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26
of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, has made the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of
M. Phil/Ph.D. Degree), Regulation, 2009 which was amended on 11.7.2009 by the 3rd Amendment to the regulations
and which provides that NET/SLET is a necessary qualification for the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer.
6. The University Grants Commission in its meeting dated 23.2.2010 vide its agenda No. 6.04 and 6.05 had exempted
NET qualification in specific cases, however, the Union Government exercising its power under sub-section (1) of
Section 20 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 issued directions to the UGC not to implement the
exemption granted by it from the applicability of NET in its meeting dated 23.2.2010. The Central Government referred
to a policy decision taken by it dated 12.11.2008 that UGC shall not give any blanket or general exemption from
NET/SLET to any University or an institution deemed to be a University, unless the Ph.D awarded by an University or
an institution deemed to be a University meets the same level or rigor in terms of standards and quality as laid down
by the UGC for each discipline under regulations for this purpose.
7. The counter affidavit of the University refers to Chapter-XLIV of the Ordinance which empowers the Vice Chancellor
that the procedure for engagement of Guest Faculty shall be prescribed by him. The Vice Chancellor constituted a
Committee which recommended the criteria for engagement, reservation and qualification for the appointment of the
guest faculty. It has recommended that the qualification for the appointment of the guest faculty shall be the same as
prescribed by the UGC in its letter dated 5.2.2010. The recommendation of the Committee of Deans and Registrar
has been approved by the Vice Chancellor. The advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment of
guest faculty strictly in accordance with the regulations of UGC and the qualifications prescribed by it.
8. In the counter affidavit of Shri B.K. Singh, Deputy Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi, the entire
back ground laying down the minimum standard for appointment of Lecturers/Assistant Professors. leading upto the
notification of the UGC (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, is set
out in detail, the summary of which is given as follows:9. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 was enacted to make provisions for the coordination and
determination of standards in the Universities. The Commission has been entrusted with the duty to take such steps
as it may think fit for the promotion and coordination of University education and for the determination and
maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities. The Commission has been vested
with the power to recommend to any University the measures necessary for the improvement of University education
and advice the Universities upon the action to be taken for implementing such recommendation as well as perform

such other functions as may be prescribed or may be deemed necessary for the Commission for advancing the
cause of higher education in India (Section 12). Clauses (d) and (j) of Section 12 empowers the UGC to frame
regulation. Section 26 (1) (g) of the Act confers specific powers to the UGC to frame regulation regulating the
maintenance of standards and the coordination of work or facilities in Universities, among others 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 and regulating the maintenance of
standards and the coordination of work or facilities in Universities.
10. The UGC on the basis of recommendations made by Prof. R.C. Mehrotra Committee and the Vice Chancellor's
conference held in 1989, decided to hold a comprehensive National Eligibility Test (NET) to determine the eligibility for
lecturer with reference to a common yardstick under its aegis. The Commission decided to supersede the UGC
(Qualifications required of a Person to be appointed to the Teaching Staff of a University and Institutions affiliated to it)
Regulations, 1982, w.e.f. 1.7.1983. The Commission, keeping in view the recommendations, made the UGC
(Qualifications required of a person to be appointed to the Teaching Staff of a University and Institutions affiliated to it)
Regulations, 1991 notified on 19.9.1991. For appointment to the post of Lecturer the regulations provided for following
qualifications:"Good academic record with at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at Master's degree level in the relevant
subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. Candidates besides fulfilling the
above qualifications should have cleared the eligibility test for lecturers conducted by University Grants Commission,
CSIR or similar test accredited by the University Grants Commission.
However, the said Regulation of 1991 provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications can only be made
by a University, with the prior approval of the Commission."
11. On the same lines the qualifications were provided for appointment of Lecturer in Journalism, Mass
Communication and Music. The possession of an M. Phil degree or the Doctorate's degree as the minimum
qualification for appointment as a Lecturer was altogether dispensed with and in its place the candidates were
required to possess the minimum educational qualification and in addition to clear the NET examinations conducted
by the Commission.
12. The validity of the Regulations of 1991 was upheld by the Supreme Court in University of Delhi vs. Raj Singh 1994
Suppl. (3) SCC 516. The Supreme Court held that in the case of eminently qualified men and women, the UGC would
not hesitate to grant prior approval to the relaxation of the requirement of clearing the test. In specific case the Delhi
University may seek prior approval for the relaxation of this requirement. On the requirement to clear the test the
Supreme Court held:- 'We have no doubt that there must be highly qualified men and women in the country who, to
serve their chosen field, would be willing to become lecturers. We have no doubt that they would appreciate the
sound objective of the said Regulations and would, therefore, not consider it infra dig to appear at and clear the test
prescribed thereby."
13. The UGC vide its Circular dated 10.2.1993 granted exemption from appearing in the eligibility test to the
candidates of the following categories:- (1) All candidates, who have passed UGC/CSIR J.R.F. Examination; (2) all
candidates, who have already been awarded Ph.D degree; (3) all candidates, who have already been awarded M. Phil
degree upto 31st March, 1991 and (4) all candidates, who will submit their Ph.D thesis upto 31st December, 1993.
14. The UGC vide its Circular dated 15.6.1993 extended the date from 31.3.1991 to 31.12.1992 in respect of
candidates who have already been awarded M. Phil degree by the said date and granted them exemption from
appearing in the NET. The UGC again vide its Circular dated 21.6.1995 amended the 1991 Regulations adding a
proviso which reads as follows:"Provided that the candidates, who have submitted Ph.D thesis or passed the M. Phil examination by 31st
December, 1993 are exempted from the eligibility test for lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test
accredited by the UGC."
15. The UGC on 24.12.1998 issued a notification in which the minimum qualifications for appointment as lecturer
including qualifying in the NET or an accredited test, remained the same as in 1991 Regulation. However, in case of
Ph.D holders the matter was left to the discretion of the University concerned to exempt Ph.D holders from NET or to
require NET in their case either as a desirable or essential qualification for appointment as lecturers in the University
departments and colleges. The notification clearly provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications can
only be made by a University with the prior approval of the Commission.
16. The Commission's experience showed that the standard of Ph.D varied from one University to another and thus
there was an urgent need for a common test with uniform syllabus to test a person's ability to teach. The
Commission again in exercise of its powers under Section 26 (1) (e) & (g) read with Section 14 framed new
Regulation namely the UGC (Minimum Qualifications Required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of
Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 which were circulated on 4.4.2000
superseding the Regulations of 1991 and the notification dated 24.12.1998. The Regulations of 2000 provided as
follows:"No person shall be appointed to a teaching post in university or in any of institutions including constituent or affiliated
colleges recognised under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or in an institution
deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the said Act in a subject if he/she does not fulfil the requirements as to
the qualifications for the subjects as provided in the Annexure.
Provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications can only be made by the University Grants Commission
in a particular subject in which NET is not being conducted or enough number of candidates are not available with
NET qualifications for a specified period only. (This relaxation, if allowed, would be given based on sound justification
and would apply to affected Universities for that particular subject for the specified period. No individual applications
would be entertained.)
Provided further that these regulations shall not be applicable to such cases where selections of the candidates

having had the then requisite minimum qualification as were existing at the time through duly constituted Selection
Committees for making appointments to the teaching posts have been made prior to the enforcement of these
regulations."
17. Subsequently the UGC in exercise of the same powers amended Regulations of 2001 by (1st Amendment) to the
Regulations of the year 2002 providing as follows:-

"NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph.D. degree.
However, the candidates who have completed M.Phil degree by 31st December, 1993 or have submitted Ph.D. thesis
to the University in the concerned subject on or before 31st December, 2002, are exempted from appearing in the
NET examination. In case such candidates fail to obtain Ph.D degree, they shall have to pass the NET examination."
18. The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India constituted a Committee under the
chairmanship of Professor Bal Chandra Mungakar to review NET examination. An interim report was submitted on
3.4.2006 with the recommendations that so far as the post graduate level teaching is concerned, the candidates
having Ph.D degree should be exempted from acquiring NET qualification for the post of lecturers. As regards to
under-graduate level teaching the Committee recommended that the candidates having M. Phil or Ph.D degree should
be exempted for acquiring NET qualification for being considered for the post of lecturers.
19. The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India by its letter dated 13.4.2006 forwarded a
copy of the interim report of the Committee set up under the chairmanship of Professor Mungekar for consideration of
the Commission. The Commission in it's 428th meeting held on 11.6.2006 considered the recommendations and
resolved as follows:"This was examined. The Commission approved the second amendment in the UGC Regulations for minimum
qualifications for appointment and career advancement of teachers in Universities and Colleges affiliated to it in the
following paragraph:'NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph.D degree.
However, the candidates who have completed M. Phil degree or have submitted Ph.D thesis in the concerned subject
up to 31st December, 1993 are exempted from appearing in the NET examination'.
The above paragraph shall be substituted with the following:'NET shall remain compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for those with post graduate degree.
However, the candidates having Ph.D degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG level and UG
level teaching. The candidates having M. Phil degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level
teaching only'.
20. The UGC consequently in exercise of its powers under University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (Second
Amendment) Regulations, 2006 provided as follows:"NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer for those with Post-Graduate Degree.
However, the candidates having Ph. D. Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG level and UG
level teaching. The candidates having M. Phil Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level
teaching only"
21. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government
of India by it's letter dated 21.2.2008 sent a copy of the final report of the Review committee on National Eligibility
Test submitted by Prof. Bhalchandra Mungekar, Chairman of the Committee and Member of the Planning
Commission and requested the UGC to furnish its comments on the recommendations. The summary of these
recommendations are given as follows:"1. Based on the intensive and extensive deliberations throughout the country and near unanimity among academics,
scientists, administrators, vice chancellors and potential candidates, most of whom would be teachers and
particularly in view of the floodgates being opened for the registration of M. Phil and Ph.D degrees resulting only into
further deterioration of quality of these degrees, and consequently making easy entry into teaching profession of such
degree holders, the Committee recommends that NET should be retained as a compulsory requirement for
appointment of lecturer for both undergraduate and post graduate level, irrespective of candidate possessing M. Phil
and Ph.D degree.
2. The UGC should restructure the papers and stipulate that those who apply for JRF should at least take some
compulsory questions for JRF candidates in Paper-III.
The Committee recommends that Paper-I should be more general in nature with equal weightage to various
disciplines. As far as possible, the questions should be domain neutral. Questions that test merely recall of
information should be avoided. These should be framed in such a way that the simple information is given in the
question and the candidates are asked to analyse, interpret, infer, judge as the case may be, so that his or her
analytical and comprehension abilities are tested.
3.The essay type question should be shifted to Section-1 from Section-IV and there should be two questions to be
answered carrying 20 marks each and the choice of topics should be increased.
4.The duration of examination of Paper-III should be increased from the existing duration of 2 hours 30 minutes to 3
hours.

5.The UGC should develop its own question bank for multiple choice questions. In view of the specialized nature of
examination and the teacher/prospective teacher being the candidates appearing for it, specialized question papers
are very much desirable. Selected standard reference books and authors for NET could be published for all the
subjects covered along with the syllabi, for the benefit of candidates. The pattern of Paper-III and also the procedure
for evaluation of papers be standardized through revised guidelines.
6.There is a need for special coaching for candidates from rural areas, disadvantaged sections and disadvantaged
communities such as SCs, STs and Minorities. It is felt that as UGC may not be in a position to organize special
coaching, it should move the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development to propose
a Central Sector Schemes/Central Schemes for funding special coaching for NET urgently, to bridge the demandsupply gap of university/college teachers and to improve the overall quality and standards of higher education in the
country. This should be an integral part of the XI plan proposals of the Ministry of HRD.
7.NET Bureau should have a Question Branch or Resource Branch with well equipped Library facilities. The UGC
should propose a special scheme for modernization of NET Bureau in the XI Plan as a part of UGC plan proposals to
Ministry of HRD.
8.The UGC should constitute a separate SET Review Committee to review the requirement of and the standards of
the SET across the country. The UGC should also lend adequate support for SETs in terms of technical expertise so
that State Eligibility Tests continue to maintain the standards of NET, in case they are accredited by the UGC.
9.UGC-NET Bureau may be converted into an independent autonomous institute on the lines of inter University Centre
in order to perform its functions effectively. The Bureau should have a full fledged computer centre with adequate
technical personnel including programmers for processing application, tabulation, analysis and preparation of data
etc.
10.It is imperative that UGC issue appropriate instructions to all universities, including Open Universities and Deemed
to be Universities regarding proper enrolments for research degrees. The UGC along with other technical bodies
should constitute a Task Force to set proper standards for the award of research degrees in the country.
11.The UGC will have to urgently devise a mechanism (i.e. transparent admission procedure, supervision, guidescholar ratio, quality of research work etc.) to scan the system of awarding M. Phil and Ph.D degrees so that only
high standard and quality degree holders get absorbed in the teaching profession.
13. The Ministry of HRD should strengthen the National Library at Kolkata where copies of all Ph.D thesis which
should be in electronic mode hereafter are sent, for proper upkeep and maintenance of data base on Ph.D
dissertations. It is also necessary that on the lines of Commonwealth Research Abstracts, abstracts of all the
dissertations with proper classification should be prepared, updated on regular basis and the same should be placed
in the website created for this purpose. This should cover Ph.Ds from technical institutions also. The Ministry of HRD
may launch a separate scheme for this in the XI Plan."
22. The UGC in its meeting held on 21.5.2008 considered the final report of the Professor Mungekar Committee and
resolved to note that its decision has wider implications. The Commission decided to have the views of Empowered
Committee for strengthening of basic science education and also the views of UGC Pay Committee. Thereafter the
Commission in its 448th meeting held on 18th and 19th June, 2008 considered the final report of Professor
Mungekar's Committee and resolved as follows:"The Commission examined the report of Prof. B.L. Mungekar Committee for review of NET and recommendations of
the Empowered Committee for strengthening of Basic Science Research thereon and provisionally decided that those
candidates who are already registered for M. Phil and Ph.D and complete the same upto 30th June, 2009 and 30th
June, 2011 respectively may be exempted. NET shall be essential condition for those who are having Master's degree
with at least 55% (50% for SC/ST) or more and those students with M. Phil degree also. The candidates who have
completed their Ph.D program would be exempted from NET. However, all the Universities would be required to follow
new procedure of standardization of Ph.D by 30th June, 2009, for which UGC shall issue Regulations within three
months.
It was also decided that the views of UGC pay review Committee be sought and final proposal in it's operational form
with details for implementation be presented in the next meeting of the Commission."
23. The UGC subsequently in its 449th meeting held on 21.7.2008 further considered the report of Professor
Mungekar's Committee and the report of UGC Pay Review Committee as well as the Empowered Committee for
strengthening of Basic Science Research and resolved as follows:"(A)
12.NET/SLET or Ph.D shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment of lecturers in Universities/
Colleges/Institutions.
2. The candidates, who are already registered for M. Phil and complete the same upto 30th June, 2009, be exempted
from NET for UG teaching. However, NET/SLET shall be compulsory for the candidates completing their M. Phil on or
after 1st July, 2009.
1.All the Universities shall be required to follow new procedure of standardization of Ph.D by 30th June, 2009 for
which UGC shall issue Regulation within three months.
4. The following guidelines may be kept in view while formulating Regulations for (3) above.

GUIDELINES FOR M.Phil/Ph.D PROGRAMME FOR UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS

Institutions eligible for conducting M.Phil./Ph.D. programmes
All Universities and Colleges/Institutions of national importance, except an Open University and Distance Education
mode in any University. In this regard, separate Regulations shall be issued for M.Phil./Ph.D. in Open University and
Distance Education Mode in Universities.
Eligibility Criteria for Ph.D Supervisor
1. Institutions should lay down the criteria for the faculty to be a Ph.D supervisor.
2. Institutions should lay down and decide, on annual basis, a pre-determined and manageable number of doctoral
students depending on the number of the available eligible faculty supervisors. A supervisor should not have, at any
given point of time, more than six to eight Ph.D scholars.
3. The number of seats for Ph.D. should be decided well in advance and notified in the University website or
advertisement. Institutions should widely advertise the number of available seats for Ph.D studies and conduct
admission on regular basis.
Procedure for Admission
1. Institutions should admit doctoral students through Entrance Test conducted at the level of individual institutions.
The University may decide separate terms and conditions for those students who qualify UGC/CSIR (JRF)
Examination or teacher fellowship holder or have passed M.Phil programme. It should be followed by an interview to
be organized by the School/Department/Institution/University. Only the predetermined number of students may be
admitted to Ph.D programme.
2. The admission to the Ph.D programme would be either directly or through M.Phil programme.
Allocation of Supervisor
The allocation of the supervisor for a selected students will be decided by the Department in a formal manner
depending on the number of students per faculty member, the available specialization among the faculty supervisors,
and the chosen topic of research by the student. The allotment/allocation of supervisor should not be left to the
individual student or teacher.
Course Work
On going admitted, each M.Phil/Ph.D student will be required by the Institution/University to undertake course work
for a maximum of two semesters. The course work should be treated as pre-Ph.D preparation and must include a
course on research methodology. The individual Institution/University will decide the minimum qualifying requirement
for allowing a student to proceed further for writing the dissertation.
Evaluation and Assessment Methods
1. On satisfactory completion of course work and research methodology, which will form part and parcel of
M.Phil/Ph.D. programme, the Ph.D scholar will undertake research work and produce a draft thesis in a reasonable
time.
2. Before submitting the thesis, the student may make a pre-Ph.D presentation in the Department, open to all faculty
members and research students, for getting feedback and comments, which may be suitably incorporated into the
draft thesis under the advice of the supervisor.
3. The thesis produced by the Ph.D students in the Institutions/Department and submitted to the University will be
evaluated by two or three experts, out of which at least one will be from outside the State. It is upto the University
concerned to have one examiner from outside the country.
4. On receipt of satisfactory evaluation reports, Ph.D students will undergo a viva voce examination which will also be
open to all faculty members of the Department.
Depository with UGC
1. Following the successful completion of the evaluation process and announcement of the award of Ph.D, the
University will submit a soft copy of the Ph.D thesis to the UGC for hosting the same in INFLIBNET, accessible to all
Institutions/Universities.
2. The degree awarding Institution/University will issue a certificate incorporating the afore-mentioned conditionality to
the (non-NET/SLET) awardees who will, in turn, enclose a copy of the same alongwith other testimonials while
applying for the post of lecturer in a University or College/Institution.
(B) The Mungekar's Committee made the following major recommendations for improving the existing NET
examination:

1. A committee will be constituted to revise the syllabus of Paper-I so that it is made more general in nature with
equal weightage to various disciplines.
2. The Committee shall also look into the revision of syllabi of Paper-II and Paper-III.
3. A Committee would be constituted by UGC to restructure Paper I, II and III on the pattern suggested by Mungekar
Committee.
4. Necessary steps will be taken to publish the reference books.
5. The UGC provide financial assistance to certain universities and institutions for holding coaching classes for NET
for the benefit of candidates belonging to SC/ST and Minorities. Mungekar Committee recommended to strengthen
this scheme and other under-privileged groups will also be included among the beneficiaries of this scheme.
6. The UGC would constitute a separate SET Review Committee to review the requirement of and the standards of the
SET across the country. The UGC would also lend adequate support to the SETs in terms of technical expertise so
that State Eligibility Test continues to maintain the standards equivalent to NET, in case they are accredited by the
UGC.
7. UGC-NET-Bureau may be converted into an independent autonomous institute on the lines of Inter University
Centre in order to perform its functions effectively. The Bureau should have a full fledged Computer Centre with
adequate technical personnel including programmers for processing of application, tabulation, analysis and
preparation of data etc.
8. UGC will develop a strong resource centre with specialized personnel in the field of library science in the NET
Bureau to manage the centre along professional lines.
The Commission approved these recommendations, in principle, and authorized the Chairman to constitute
committees for operationilising the same and also for detailed examination of recommendation in respect of Sl. No. 7
above."
24. In the meantime, a Writ Petition No. 4266 of 2006 and other writ petitions were filed before the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench challenging the validity of (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2006 notified on
14.6.2006. During the pendency of the writ petition the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human
Resources Development, Government of India issued an order under Section 20 of the UGC Act dated 12.11.2008,
the contents of which are quoted as below:"(1) The UGC shall, for serving the national purpose of maintaining standards of higher education, frame appropriate
regulations within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of this order prescribing that qualifying in NET/SLET
shall generally be compulsory for all persons appointed to teaching positions of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in
Higher Education, and only persons who possess degree of Ph.D. after having been enrolled/admitted to a
programme notified by the Commission, after it has satisfied itself on the basis of expert opinion, as to be or have
always been in conformity with the procedure of standardization of Ph.D. prescribed by it, and also that the degree of
Ph.D. was awarded by a University or Institution Deemed to be University notified by the UGC as having already
complied with the procedure prescribed under the regulations framed by the Commission for the purpose.
(2) The UGC shall notify the date or dates from which exemption from qualifying in NET/SLET in respect of
Universities/Institutions Deemed to be Universities as well as the discipline for which such exemption is being granted
only on the recommendations of a Committee of Experts to be constituted by the Commission and that the experts
therein shall be persons of high eminence in the respective disciplines for which the persons possessing Ph.D. are
considered for exemption from qualifying NET/SLET.
(3) The UGC shall not give any blanket or general exemption from NET/SLET to any University/Institution Deemed to
be University unless the degree of Ph.D awarded by it in all disciplines or programmes meet the same level of rigour
in terms of standards and quality as laid down by the Commission for each discipline under the regulations for the
purpose, and that exemption from NET/SLET in respect of Ph.D. awarded by any University/Institution Deemed to be
University or to one or more of its programmes/disciplines in respect of such Ph.D shall be further subject to the
University/Institution continuing to comply with the regulations of the UGC and shall be open to review or
reconsideration by the Commission; and, such exemption shall be withdrawn in any or all disciplines or in respect of
an award of Ph.D to any person or persons, where the Commission has, on the basis of recommendation by the
Committee of experts or on the basis of any inquiry conducted by it suo moto, reasons to believe that there has been
deviation from or violation of the procedure prescribed by the Commission."
25. Taking note of the aforesaid order of the Central Government, the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench disposed of
the writ petitions with the directions that so for as the lecturers, who were in service from 1991 onwards, the issue of
exemption to them will be covered by the orders of UGC dated 5.11.2008. Their proposals will have to be considered
and approved, as per the said decision of UGC and the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners, who are not similarly
placed, have to be in accordance with the order of Government of India dated 12.11.2008, and that the said issue has
to be resolved by the University Grants Commission on the recommendations of the University concerned with final
decision as per the orders passed by the Government of India.
26. The Commission in its 454th meeting dated 10 and 11th December, 2008 considered the order of the Central
Government on the basis of report of Professor Mungekar's Committee and resolved as follows:"The Commission considered the direction received from MHRD regarding exemption from NET examination for

minimum qualification for appointment of teachers. The Members expressed the view that many of the universities
have advertised various teaching positions and are in the process of making selections. The Commission and the
Ministry of HRD have been giving relaxation in the past all cases for the existing candidates who have successfully
completed M.Phil/Ph.D and were eligible for exemption as per the existing norms. The Commission had, therefore,
recommended exemption from NET for such candidates as recommended by the Mungekar Committee upto June
2009 for M.Phil candidates and June 2011 for Ph.D candidates. Such a decision would be in conformity with the past
decisions of the Government.
The Members also mentioned that the research scholars already enrolled for M.Phil/Ph.D would be covered for
exemption provided they complete the same by the above stipulated period.
The Members desired that their views may be conveyed to the Government for reconsideration. However, in view of
the directions from the Government, the Commission approved that the following two Regulations may be sent to
MHRD for publishing in the Gazette:
(i) UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for award of Ph.D. Degree), Regulations, 2008 (APPENDIX-II).
(ii) UGC (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and career advancement of Teachers in Universities
and Institutions affiliated to it - 3rd amendment), Regulations, 2008 (APPENDIX-III)."
27. The UGC subsequently by it's letter dated 3.3.2009 sent the U.G.C. (Minimum Standards and Procedure for
Award of Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2008, as also the UGC (Minimum Qualifications Required for the Appointment
and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it) (3rd Amendment), Regulations,
2008 for publication in the Gazette of India. These regulations were published on July 11-July 17, 2009 superseding
the (1st Amendment) Regulations of 2002 dated 21.7.2002, and the (2nd Amendment) Regulations of 2006 dated
14.6.2006. The 3rd Amendment, which is under consideration in this writ petition, provides as follows:"NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities/
Colleges/ Institutions.
Provided, however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded Ph.D. Degree in compliance of the "University
Grants Commission (minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D Degree), Regulation 2009, shall be
exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment of
Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/ institutions."
28. At this stage, the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India by it's letter dated 16.7.2009
conveyed the following clarification:"(i) Those presently working as teachers in ad-hoc capacity but are not NET qualified shall be given a time period of
two years (i.e. four attempts at NET) to qualify in the NET/SLET and during this period of two years, colleges and
universities may be directed by the University Grants Commission not to fill, on regular basis, teaching posts
presently held on ad hoc basis.
3.In order to speed up the process, UGC may delegate to universities the process of assessment of Ph.D
qualifications that are eligible for exemptions from the mandatory NET/SLET while strictly adhering to the norms laid
down under the UGC regulations, namely, exemptions to those persons who obtained their Ph.D in disciplines and
from universities which follow the procedure of (a) admission tests for enrolment; (b) mandatory course work; and (c)
evaluation by eminent external examiners.
(iii) However, where a university has, in place, a regular process of admission tests for registration for M. Phil as well
as mandatory course work in respect of M. Phil, the degree of Ph.D from such universities shall be exempt from first
two of the conditionalities mentioned in (ii) above. This is in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of these
processes at the M. Phil as well as Ph.D levels in the same university. However, even in such a situation, the other
condition of evaluation shall be mandatory. Accordingly, the UGC vide it's letter dated 27.08.2009 issued a
clarification addressed to all the Vice Chancellors of Central University, State University and Deemed to be
University."
29. The Ministry of Human Resource Development issued another order dated 30.3.2010 under Section 20 of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 directing the UGC as follows:"(i) That the UGC shall not take up specific cases for exemption from the application of the NET Regulations of 2009
after the said Regulations have come into force, for either specific persons or for a specific
university/institution/college from the application of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for appointment and career
advancement of teachers in universities and colleges )3rd Amendment Regulations, 2009 for appointment as Lecturer
in universities/colleges/institutions;
(ii)That appropriate amendment to the second proviso to clause 2 of the UGC Regulations 2000 shall be made by
UGC to give full effect to the policy directions issued by the Central Government dated 12th November, 2008, within
30 days from the date of issue of this direction; and
(ii)That the decision taken by the UGC in it's 468th meeting held on 23rd February, 2010 vide agenda item no. 6.04
and 6.05 to grant specific exemptions from the applicability of NET shall not be implemented as being contrary to
national policy.
The above said directions shall be implemented by the UGC forthwith."

30. The Ministry of Human Resource Development later on issued another communication dated 11.8.2010 regarding
adhoc teachers who do not have NET/SLET qualifications directing that such teachers will be provided an opportunity
of two more attempts at NET or maximum of one year to become eligible to continue in their teaching position. In this
circular dated 5.10.2010 it was provided that two more attempts was not in addition to four attempts at NET provided
by earlier circular dated 27.8.2009 rather it is a part of the same.
31. The 3rd Amendment to the Regulations of 2009 have now been superseded by UGC (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. For recruitment and qualifications by way of direct
recruitment it is provided in Regulation 3.1.0 that they shall be on the basis of merit through all India advertisement
and selections by the duly constituted Selection Committees under the Statutes/Ordinances of the concerned
University. The composition of such Committees should be as prescribed by UGC in the Regulations. Para 3.3.0
provides for minimum qualification for good academic record to be 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale
wherever grading system is followed) at the master's level and qualifying in the NET/SLET for Assistant Professors.
Para 3.3.1 relevant for the purpose of this case regarding Ph.D degree is quoted as below:"3.3.1. NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant
Professors in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.
Provided however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph.D Degree in accordance with the University
Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be
exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and
appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions."
32. The NET/SLET/SET is not required under Para 3.3.2 in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET accredited test is not
conducted. The relaxations are provided in Para 3.4.1 for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Differently-abled
(Physically and visually differently-abled) categories for the purpose of eligibility and for assessing good academic
record during direct recruitment to teaching positions. In Para 3.5.0 a relaxation of 5% is provided from 55% to 50% of
the marks to the Ph.D Degree holders, who have obtained their Master's Degree prior to 19th September, 1991. The
Ph.D degree, however, in Para 3.7.0 is mandatory qualification for the appointment of Professors and for promotion as
Professors as well as all candidates to be appointed as Associate Professor through direct recruitment. The
Commission considered the Regulations of 2010 for appointments and the Regulations of 2009 for minimum
standards and procedure for awards of M.Phil/Ph.D degree and resolved on 27.9.2010, that since the 3rd Amendment
to the Regulations of 2009, has come into effect on 11.7.2009 and the Regulations of 2010 have come into effect on
10.6.2010 and these are prospective and not retrospective in nature, therefore, all candidates having M. Phil degree
on or before 10.7.2009 shall remain exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment as
Lecturer/Associate Professor. It was further resolved that all the candidates, who have either obtained Ph.D on or
before 31.12.2009 and such candidates, who had registered themselves for Ph.D on or before 31.12.2009 and are
subsequently awarded Ph.D degree shall remain exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of
appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor. The relevant part of the resolution is quoted as below:"(iii) The Commission further resolved that since both the above mentioned Regulations are prospective and not
retrospective in nature, therefore, all candidates having M. Phil degree on or before 10th July, 2009 shall remain
exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor. Further, all
candidates, who have either obtained Ph.D degree on or before 31st December, 2009 and such candidates who had
registered themselves for Ph.D degree on or before 31st December, 2009 and are subsequently awarded Ph.D degree
shall remain exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor.
Since proviso of UGC (Minimum qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers for
Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations 2000 remained in force until the notification of UGC (Minimum
Qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for
the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2010, therefore, all applications received by UGC
seeking exemption from requirement of NET may be considered and disposed off in accordance with the prevalent
norms/regulations.
The Commission further decided that this may be sent to the Government of India for their concurrence in view of
earlier Order No. F.5-4/2005-U.I. (A) dated 30th March, 2010 issued under Section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956."
33. The Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India vide letter of the Additional Secretary dated
3.11.2010 informed the Commission regarding the view of the Government and their inability to agree to the decision
of the Commission. Consequently as on date a candidate seeking appointment to the post of Lecturer must fulfill the
minimum qualifications prescribed by the UGC as contained in the UGC Regulations.
34. Shri Ritvik Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for University Grants Commission has referred to the judgment
by the Apex Court in University of Delhi v. Raj Singh (supra), the judgment of Madras High Court as well as Delhi High
Court. The High Court of Madras dismissed the writ petition repelling the challenge in upholding the validity of the
UGC (3rd Amendment) Regulations and the Delhi High Court in All India Researchers' Coordination Committee and
others vs. Union of India & others upheld the validity of UGC (3rd Amendment) Regulations 2009 which make NET as
essential qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor. He has also relied upon University Grants Commission
vs. Sadhna Chaudhary and others JT 1996 (9) SC 234 in which it was held that the choice of a date as a basis for
classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it
is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that when it is seen that a line
or a point there must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the
legislature or it's delegate must be accepted unless it can be said that it is very wide of the reasonable mark.

35. On the interpretation of the expression "who are or have been awarded Ph.D Degree" in the 3rd Amendment to
the Regulations of 2009, it is submitted that it contemplates Ph.D degrees awarded in compliance and/or in
conformity with the UGC Regulations of 2009 for laying down minimum standard and procedure for award of Ph.D
degree. So far as Ph.D degrees already awarded is concerned, the classification is defended on the grounds that
those presently working as teachers in adhoc capacity but are not NET qualified shall be given a time period of two
years (four attempts at NET) to qualify in the NET/SLET and during this period of two years, the Colleges and
Universities may be directed by the UGC not to fill on regular basis teaching posts presently held on adhoc basis and
further in order to speed up the process, the UGC may delegate to the Universities the process of assessment of
Ph.D qualifications that are eligible for exemptions from the mandatory NET/SLET while strictly adhering to the norms
laid down under the UGC regulations, namely, exemptions to those persons, who obtained their Ph.D in disciplines
and from Universities which follow the procedure of (a) admission tests for enrolment; (b) mandatory course work; and
(c) evaluation by eminent external examiners. Further where a University has in place a regular process of admission
test for registration for M. Phil as well as mandatory course work in respect of M. Phil, the degree of Ph.D from such
universities shall be exempt from first two of the conditionalities, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of these
processes at the M. Phil and Ph.D levels in the same University. Even in such a situation, the other condition of
evaluation shall be mandatory. The clarifications have been addressed by UGC vide its letter dated 27.8.2009 to all
the Vice Chancellors of the Central Universities, State Universities and Deemed Universities.
36. It is stated that in the year 2009 the UGC constituted an Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. S.P.
Thyagarajan regarding identification of the Universities whose Ph.D may be in accordance with the UGC norms. The
Committee held its meeting on 5.11.2009 and resolved as follows:"Accordingly, the members discussed at length and evolved the following formula:1. All those candidates, who have registered for Ph.D in any University (recognized by UGC) after 11th July, 2009
which is the date of publication of the regulation in the Gazette, shall strictly adhere to the provision specified in the
regulations. They shall incorporate the requirements whatever the deficiency in their existing Ph.D norms and fully
comply with UGC Regulations.
2. For those candidates, who are registered in Universities prior to 11th July, 2009, the committee resolved to follow
the following criteria for evaluation of the applications made by the various universities along with duly filled in
proforma of UGC along with their respective university's Ph.D regulations.
1. Admission by entrance test or interview or both.
2. Maximum numbers, M. Phills:5, Ph.D:8/Supervisor.
3. National/Reservation Policy.
4. Course work/Research Methodology Theory.
5. Research Advisory Committee-Review of the progress.
6. Part-I, methodology exam.
7. Pre-Ph.D presentation before synopsis submission.
8. Publication of at least 1 paper before thesis submission.
9. Presentation of 2 papers in conferences or seminar.
10. Evaluation of thesis by two experts other than supervisor, one out of the State.
11. Soft copy of the thesis in the University.
It was further resolved that out of 11 criteria, if the university has satisfied any 6 of them, it was decided to
recommend such universities for exemption for the candidates registered under them and hence, such Ph.D
candidates would become eligible for NET exemption as and when they acquired their Ph.D Degree from those
universities."
37. The UGC in its meeting dated 8.7.2011 considered the issue arising out of the minutes of the Standing
Committee on the UGC Regulations of 2009 and decided as follows:"1. An open university may be permitted to conduct M. Phil/Ph.D programmes through distant education mode
subject to the condition that it does so strictly as per the provision of the UGC Regulations, 2009.
(iii)The 11 points criteria laid down by the Standing Committee on M. Phil/Ph.D Regulations, 2009 may be uploaded
on UGC website and also circulated to all institutions of higher education for information and further action.
2.For undertaking Ph.D under the distance education mode, the principal guide should be from within the open
university and a joint guide, wherever necessary, may be from outside the university. However a teacher should not
have more than 2 candidates under his supervision as a joint guide.
3.The Regulations, 2009 are silent with regard to academic, administrative and infrastructure requirements to be
fulfilled by a university for offering M. Phil/Ph.D programms and there is a need for these to be spelled out clearly in
the regulations.
4.Amendments required in the UGC Regulations may be made accordingly and steps necessary for their notification
may be taken."
38.In paragraph-37 of the counter affidavit of Shri B.K. Singh, Deputy Secretary, University Grants Commission it is
stated that in view of the above decision of the Commission the UGC has constituted a Committee which has held
one meeting so far.
39. From these background details given in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of University Grants Commission, we

find that in the Regulations of 2010, the NET/SLET/SET is the essential requirement for appointment as
Lecturer/Assistant Professor. The M. Phil and Ph.D degrees for Under-Graduate and Post Graduate Courses are not
sufficient as prescribed by the UGC. The issue, however, has not been fully resolved between the UGC and the
Central Government regarding insistence on NET/SLET/SET as the only qualification for appointment. For those, who
are not selected and registered and are not pursuing Ph.D in accordance with the Regulations of 2009, the 11 point
criteria has been laid down by the Standing Committee of UGC, out of which 06 points have to be satisfied for
exemption for the candidates registered under them; only such Ph.D candidates would become eligible for
exemptions from NET/SLET as and when they acquire their Ph.D from those universities.
40. Shri R.B. Singhal, Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri M.B. Singh has relied upon the averments
in the counter affidavit of Shri R.R. Meena, Under Secretary in the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of
Human Resources Development filed on behalf of Union of India. In this counter affidavit, it is stated that a Review
Committee, to review the National Eligibility Test under Prof. B. Mungekar was constituted by the Central Government
to study its utility, effectiveness and continuation. Based on the interim report of the Committee, the UGC amended
the regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment and career advancement of Lecturers, Readers and
Professors in Universities and Colleges making NET as essential qualification, while those with Ph.D qualification
were not required to qualify NET to be eligible for teaching position. The regulations came into effect w.e.f. 14.6.2006.
In the final report of the Committee after considering all the factors it was recommended that the NET should be
retained as a requirement for appointment of lecturer for instruction at both under-graduate and post-graduate level
irrespective of the candidates possessing M. Phil or Ph.D degree.
41. In pursuance to interim directions in Writ Petition No. 4266 of 2006 (Bhupesh Marotrao Mude and ors vs. the
Union of India &others) filed in the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), in order to promote standard of higher
education, a direction was issued under Section 20 (2) of the UGC Act, 1956 on 12.11.2008 directing the UGC to
frame appropriate regulations prescribing that NET/SLET shall generally be compulsory for all persons appointed to
the teaching positions and only those persons, who possess degree of Ph.D after having been enrolled/admitted to a
programme notified by the UGC to be inconformity with the procedure of standardization of Ph.D prescribed by it
under regulations were exempted.
42. Consequent to the policy directives issued by the Central Government, the (3rd Amendment) Regulations of 2009,
were notified on 11.7.2009. These regulations are prospective in nature in so far as they apply to appointments made
or proposed to be made after the date of notification i.e. 11th July, 2009. The candidate having Ph.D in accordance
with the UGC Regulation, 2009 can only be exempted from NET for appointment. In order to give some relief to the
teachers appointed through regular procedures and working in adhoc capacity, who have not qualified NET/SLET nor
obtained a Ph.D in accordance with the regulations, four attempts (two years) were provided for qualifying the
NET/SELT.
43. The UGC in its 468th meeting held on 23.2.2010 vide agenda item No. 6.04 and 6.05 considered the specific
requests in respect of particular individuals received from various Universities for granting exemptions from NET for
appointment as lecturer. The UGC referred to the first proviso to clause (2) of the Regulations of 2000 which
empowered the UGC to provide relaxation in prescribed qualification in a particular subject in which NET is not being
conducted or individual number of candidates are not available with NET qualification for specific period only. The
Central Government by its order dated 30.3.2010 issued by Shri Sunil Kumar, Joint Secretary to the Government of
India for and on behalf of the President of India found that the resolution of the UGC dated 23.2.2010 vide agenda item
no. 6.04 and 6.05 was in clear violation of the policy directives dated 12.11.2008, under sub-section (1) of Section 20
of the Act, issued directions as follows:
"And, whereas, the Central Government has been concerned about the quality of higher education and while
approving the revision of pay scales for the academic community consequent to the recommendations of the Pay
Review Committee, had notified pay scales at the entry level at sufficiently higher levels so as to attract talent to
teaching through tightening entry with improved qualification criteria while liberalizing pay and other incentives in
consonance with the national policy to improve the quality of higher education;
And, whereas, the Government is of the opinion that appropriate directions need to be issued reiterating the principle
of attracting quality talent to teaching as a national policy to be achieved through tightening entry into the academic
profession while liberalizing pay and other incentives;
And, whereas, the Central Government views the decisions of the UGC in its meeting held on 23rd February, 2010
vide agenda items 6.04 and 6.05 as contrary to national policy;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section 1 of Section 20 of the UGC Act, 1956, the Central
Government hereby directs:(i) that the UGC shall not take up specific cases for exemption from the application of the NET Regulations of 2009
after the said Regulations have come into force, for either specific persons or for a specific
university/institution/college from the application of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for appointment and career
advancement of teachers in universities and colleges) 3rd Amendment Regulations, 2009 for appointment as lecturer
in universities/colleges/institutions;
38.that appropriate amendments to the second proviso to clause-2 of the UGC Regulations 2000 shall be made by
UGC to give full effect to the policy directions issued by the Central Government dated 12th November, 2008, within a
period of 30 days from the date of issue of this direction; and
39.that the decision taken by the UGC in its 468th meeting held on 23rd February, 2010 vide agenda item no. 6.04
and 6.05 to grant specific exemptions from the applicability of NET shall not be implemented as being contrary to
national policy.
The above said directions shall be implemented by the UGC forthwith.

For and on behalf of the President of India,

(Sunil Kumar)
Joint Secretary to the Government of India."

44. The UGC in its 471st Meeting held on 12.8.2010 on agenda item no. 2.08 resolved to recommend the regulations
to be prospective in nature. The Central Government in reply to the request made by the UGC vide it's letter dated
3.11.2010 signed by Shri Sunil Kumar, Joint Secretary (HE), Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human
Resource Development, Government of India did not agree with the recommendations and reiterated its directive
issued under Section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956 in making NET/SLET compulsory for teaching positions as a policy
relating to a national purpose of maintenance of standard of higher education. It is useful to quote the letter signed by
Additional Secretary (HE) to the Secretary Incharge, UGC as follows:"SUNIL KUMAR Government of India
ADDITIONAL SECRETARY (HE) Ministry of Human Resource Dev.
D.O. NO. 8-7/2010-U.I(A) Department of Higher Education
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi
Dated the 3rd November, 2010
Dear Dr. Kazmi,
I desire to draw your attention to your letter addressed to the Secretary, HE dated 23rd September, 2010 in which a
request has been made to the Government to accord concurrence to the resolution made by the Commission on
agenda item no. 2.08 in its 471st meeting held on 12.8.2010.
In this connection, I am desired to convey to you that said resolutions are against the letter and spirit of the
regulations issued by UGC from time to time regarding compulsory NET/SLET qualifications for appointment to
lecturers/Asst. Professors. The above mentioned resolution perhaps does not take into account the fact that
appointments, if any, pursuant to the date of coming into force of these regulations are bound to be prospective only.
Appointments can never be made with retrospective dates. Therefore, exempting the candidates from NET/SLET
requirement, who are going to be appointed or have been appointed after 11th July, 2009 would be violative of the
UGC (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers for Universities and
institutions affiliated to it) (3rd amendment) Regulations, 2009.
Regarding the plea that since proviso to UGC (Minimum qualifications required for the appointment and Career
Advancement of teachers for Universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 remained in force till the
notification of UGC (Minimum qualifications for appointment teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and
Colleges and measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010, and hence UGC can
consider and dispose of the applications received seeking exemption from NET requirement, again is not tenable.
This resolution does not take into account the UGC (Minimum qualifications required for the appointment and Career
Advancement of teachers for Universities and institutions affiliated to it) (3rd amendment) Regulations, 2009 at all,
wherein a blanket ban was imposed on non-NET/SLET qualified candidates. Similarly, since by Commissions' own
admission, the regulations are prospective in nature and not retrospective, invoking the proviso to UGC (Minimum
qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers for Universities and institutions
affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 is clearly in-congruous. The present regulations in force do not have any provisions
for exemption of candidates who are not NET/SLET qualified. In the above circumstances, I am desired to draw your
attention to and reiterate the directive issued under Section 20 (1) of th UGC, 1956 in making NET/SLET compulsory
for teaching positions as a policy relating to national purposes of maintenance of standards of higher education.
With regards,
Dr. N.A. Kazmi, Yours sincerely,
Secretary in-charge-UGC
(Sunil Kumar)"

45. In paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit of Shri Raja Ram Meena, Under Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources
Development, it is stated that the quality of teaching in higher education is a matter of great concern. When the Pay
Review Committee recommendations in respect of teachers in Colleges and Universities were taken up by the Central
Government, the salaries and other allowances for teachers higher than those for the Group "A" Civil Services were
accepted by the Government on the condition that the eligibility conditions would be streamlined and qualifications
would be in consonance with objection of having teachers of high academic excellence which would ensure that over
time the best talent comes into academic professions through a process of regulating entry and liberalizing pay and
other incentives.
46. In the counter affidavit of Shri Govind Prasad, Office Assistant (Legal Cell), Allahabad University, Allahabad, it is
stated that the University is centrally funded and is governed by the University of Allahabad Act, 2005, which is a
Central Act. The UGC allocates the funds and recommends the measures necessary for importance of university
education and advise the University the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendations.
At present more than 300 posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers are lying vacant in the University of Allahabad
for multiple reasons. Chapter XLIV deals with part time lecturers and guest faculty. Under the said Chapter the
University can appoint the guest faculty for an academic session. In view of large number of vacancies the
engagement of guest lecturers is necessary. The UGC, by its communication dated 5.2.2010, had directed the
University that for engagement of guest/part time lecturers, the qualification should be the same as those prescribed

for regular lecturer of the University. The University has, therefore, called only those candidates, who are eligible for
the post of Assistant Lecturer with NET/SLET/SET as per the U.G.C. Regulations. In paragraph-7 it is further
submitted that the Ph.D Degree awarded to the petitioners are not in the terms of University Grants Commission, as
follows:"7....
It is further submitted that the Ph.D Degree awarded to the petitioners are not in the terms of University Grant
Commission (Minimum Standard and Procedure for Awards of M. Phil/Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009. Detail
procedure for the admission and award of the degree has been laid down in Regulation, 2009 which has not been
followed in the case of the petitioners."
47. In paragraph-10 it is stated that candidates were called for interview for guest faculty in accordance with the
procedures approved by the Vice Chancellor on 11.7.2011 in terms of Chapter XLIV Para 6G of the Ordinance.
48. The University has also relied upon the letter of the Additional Secretary, Higher Education dated 3.11.2011
addressed to Secretary, Incharge UGC and the D.O. letter sent by the Director, University Grants Commission to the
Additional Solicitor General of India indicating the aforesaid fact. It is further stated in paragraph-15 that the Vice
Chancellor of the University has approved the procedure of engagement of guest faculty from the session 2011-12 on
11.7.2011 by the Committee of Deans, and Registrar of the University. The Committee had recommended on the
constitution of Expert Committee and criteria for engagement as follows:"The Committee deliberated on the following points and resolved as under:1. Constitution of Expert Committee for engagement of Guest Faculty. As per UGC instruction the qualifications and
engagement procedure for engagement of the Guest Faculty will be the same as for appointment of regular teachers
as contained in UGC letter No. F. 10-1/2009 (PS), dated 05.02.2010 reported to Executive Council. The Committee
resolved that the UGC Guidelines are to be followed in letter and spirit.
2. Criteria for Engagement: The Committee stressed that the engagement criteria must be same as prescribed by the
UGC and it should be followed strictly."
49. Sections 20 and 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 are quoted as below:"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.
(ii)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;
(c) specifying the terms and conditions of service of the employees appointed by the Commission;
(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 of work or facilities in Universities.
(h) regulating the establishment of institutions referred to in clause (ccc) of section 12 and other matters relating to
such institutions;
(i) specifying the matters in respect of which fees may be charged, and scales of fees in accordance with which fees
may be charged, by a college under sub- section (2) of section 12A;
(j) specifying the manner in which an inquiry may be conducted under sub- section (4) of section 12A.
(2) No regulation shall be made under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) [ or clause (h)] or clause (i)
or clause (j) of sub- section (1) except with the previous approval of the Central Government.
(3) The power to make regulations conferred by this section [ except clause (i) and clause (j) of sub- section (1)] shall
include the power to give retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, to
the regulations or any of them but no retrospective effect shall be given to any regulation so as to prejudicially affect
the interest of any person to whom such regulation may be applicable"
50. A Division Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 11789 of 2010 and other connected writ petitions,

considered the prayers of the petitioners to forbear the respondents from insisting on NET/SLET qualification for
candidates, who have passed M. Phil prior to 1993 for being eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professors in
Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service, and for a declaration of Regulations of 2009 notified on 11.7.2009 as
arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in so far as NET/SLET made minimum
qualification for lecturer post without giving special exemption for the candidates, who got their M. Phil degrees prior
to 31.12.1993. The petitioners pressed the plea of legitimate expectation.
51. After considering the entire background including the recommendations of the Review Committee of Professor
Mungekar and other experts to review the scheme of the NET and the decision taken by the Central Government, it
was held that the principle of legitimate expectation will have no application to the facts and circumstances of the
case. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource felt the need to introduce NET as compulsory for the
purpose of appointment of teaching post in order to upgrade the standard of teaching. For that purpose, the Expert
Committees were constituted consisting of eminent experts and academicians, who recommended that NET/SLET
should be retained as compulsory requirement for appointment of lecturer irrespective of the candidates possessing
degree in M. Phil and Ph.D. after considering the report of Prof. Mungekar Committee, the University Grants
Commission was directed to frame regulations to serve the national purpose of maintaining standards of higher
education. But, the University Grants Commission, without considering the object and purpose of raising the standard
of education, and without considering the global scenario, although framed regulations, but, tried to give certain
relaxation to the candidates for appearing in NET/SLET examinations. The Central Government rightly refused to
approve the decision of University Grants Commission. Hence, the regulation and the decision of the Central
Government cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be held to be illegal, arbitrary or whimsical, rather the decision is
rational and based on public interest and also national policy to upgrade the standards of education in the country.
The writ petitions were dismissed.
52. The Delhi High Court in All India Researchers' Coordination Committee & ors vs. Union of India & ors Writ Petition
(C) 13689/2009 considered the challenge to the constitutional validity of the regulations dated 11.7.2009 (3rd
Amendment) Regulations, 2009, on the grounds that the Central Government could not have interfered with the
powers of the UGC under UGC Act, 1956 to frame the regulations. Section 20 of the Act is a general provision, which
could not override Section 26 (1) of the Act, which is special provision. The consistent policy of the UGC and the
Government to grant exemptions to those, who had obtained M.Phil and Ph.D before the cut of date provided a vested
right, which accrued in favour of the petitioners. The directions of Government of India to reject the recommendations
of the UGC was arbitrary exercise of power by the Central Government and that under Section 25 (3) of the UGC Act
no retrospective rule can be framed by UGC, which would prejudicially affect the interest of any person to whom such
rule is applicable.
53. The Delhi High Court expressed its opinion (para-23) that quality of teaching in higher education is a matter of
great concern. The standards of education in Universities and other institutions of higher learning have to be improved
substantially. The prescription of NET as an entry bar for being placed in order to ensure a certain modicum of quality
screening so that persons of quality entered the academic profession. Consequently, the prescription of NET
examination cannot be called to be arbitrary. The directions of the Central Government are with regard to the policy
relating to national purpose (para-24) and consequently not only contemplated by the Act but also binding upon the
UGC in terms of Section 20 (1) of the Act. The UGC's power is not a stand-alone power but is subject to other
provisions of the Act. The regulations under Section 26 have to be in consonance with the rules as framed by the
Central Government under Section 25 of the Act. The UGC has to follow the policy directions issued to it by the
Central Government as mandated by Section 20 (1). It was held that Section 26 is special in nature and other
provisions of the Act including Section 20 are general in nature, consequently it cannot be held that Section 26 has
overriding effect over the other provisions of the Act. The Delhi High Court also rejected the plea of legitimate
expectation on the ground that there cannot be any estoppal against Statutes.
54. The Delhi High Court also repelled the challenge of arbitrariness in issuing regulations as various expert
committees had concluded that there was a wide variation in the grant of Ph.D/M. Phil degrees in various universities
regarding course work, absence of external evaluation or non-insistence of full time enrolment. A common national
yardstick has been adopted by the Regulations of 2009. In paragraph-32 it was observed that confining the exemption
to only those Ph.D degree holders, who had been awarded the Ph.D degrees in compliance with Universities Grants
Commission (Minimum Standards and procedure for Award of Ph.D Degree), Regulation, 2009 and not extending the
same to M. Phil degree holders and every Ph.D degree holder has a rational relation with the objective sought to be
achieved by the regulations. The classification is based upon an intelligible differentia and it has a rational nexus with
the differentia and the object sought to be achieved by the Rules/Regulations. It is not for the Court to question the
wisdom of the policy directives of the Ministry of Human Resource and Development based on the recommendations
of the Expert Committee. There was no violation of the enabling Act or any provision of the Constitution. The NET
examination has been upheld in University of Delhi vs. Raj Singh (1994) Suppl. 3 SCC 516. In the end the Court
observed in its judgment dated 6.12.2010 that the Regulations of 2009 are in no way retrospective in nature. They are
prospective inasmuch as they apply to appointments made or proposed to be made after the date of notification and
do not apply to appointments made on regular basis prior to the said date. The writ petitions were dismissed.
55. In Dr. Gaurav Kumar Singh and others vs. Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University and others Writ A No.
59208 of 2010 decided on 1.12.2010 this Court considered the question of grant of exemption as the petitioners were
not awarded Ph.D degrees in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the University Grants Committee
(Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M. Phil/Ph.D Degree) Regulation, 2009 relying upon the 472nd
Meeting of the UGC, in which it was resolved that the UGC Regulations of 2009/2010 are prospective and not
retrospective in nature and its resolution that all candidates having M. Phil degree on or before July 10, 2009 shall
remain exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor and
after considering that the 3rd Amendment Regulations dated 7.11.2009 provided the cut of date initially as 31.3.2009
and was thereafter extended to 7.11.2009 allowed the writ petition on the ground that when the UGC had itself made
the procedure for award of M. Phil/Ph.D degree prospective in application, the University could not have insisted upon
qualification in accordance with the Regulations of 2009. It was held that all those persons, who were registered and
have completed Ph.D course prior to 7.11.2009 could not be subjected to hostile and invidious discrimination, their
Ph.D degrees have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of considering exemption from NET/SLET for
appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Director in the University Sports Board of Banaras Hindu University upto the date

of enforcement of the UGC Regulations of 2009.

56. It is apparent from the judgment that the decision taken by the Central Government on 3.11.2010 was not placed
before the Court by which under Section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956 the Central Government had not approved the
resolution of the Commission on item No. 2.08 in its 471st Meeting held on 12.8.2010, and in which the Central
Government had clarified that appointments are never made with retrospective dates and since the Commission on
own admission the Regulations are prospective in nature, invoke the proviso to the Regulations of 2000 was clearly
incongruous, the Central Government further reasoned that the present regulations do not have any provisions for
exemption of candidates, who are not NET/SLET qualified.
57. From the aforesaid discussion, we find that whereas the UGC has been requesting and recommending that the
insistence on NET/SLET/SET qualifications and the award of Ph.D in accordance with the procedures prescribed for
admission, evaluation and other conditions in the 3rd Amendment to the Regulations of 2009, should not be insisted
for those, who have completed the M. Phil/Ph.D degree prior to the enforcement of the Regulations of 2009, the
Central Government has, in order to maintain the quality of teaching and reiterating the conditions on which the pay
scales of teachers were increased over and above Group 'A' services, insisted that there should be no exemptions
given to such persons. The Central Government has also pointed out that all those persons having M. Phil/Ph.D
degrees awarded in accordance with the procedures prescribed prior to the 3rd Amendment to the Regulations of
2009, were given two years moratorium to acquire NET/SLET/SET qualifications. The Central Government has also
not agreed to the recommendations of UGC to exempt M. Phil/Ph.D in specific cases from NET/SLET/SET
qualifications and has insisted upon strict adherence to the cut of date.
58. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the policy directives dated 12.11.2008, 16.7.2009,
30.3.2010 and 3.11.2010 issued by the Central Government under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act overruling
the recommendations of UGC are in violation of the scheme of the UGC Act, 1956, which has constituted the UGC as
an expert body for maintaining standard in higher education. The power to make regulations for defining the
qualifications, that should ordinarily be required by 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 under Section 26 (1) (e), has
been specially entrusted to the Commission. The regulations are not required to be made under sub-section (2) under
clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (h) or clause (i) or clause (j) of sub-section (1) except
with the previous approval of the Central Government. The Parliament has not expressly included clause (e), clause
(f), clause (g), in sub-section (2) of Section 26, which provides for defining the qualification. In these matters including
defining the qualifications, that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the
University defining the minimum standard of instructions regulating the maintenance of standard and the coordination
of work or facilities in the universities, the Commission does not require previous approval of the Central Government.
It is submitted that the directions to be issued under Section 20 (1) or to be issued by way of guidelines are confined
on questions of policy relating to national purpose. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 provides that if any dispute arises
between the Central Government and the Commission as to whether the question is or is not a question of policy
relating to national purposes, only then the decision of the Central Government shall be final.
59. Shri Jitendra Kumar submits that the power of making regulations under Section 26 is separate and distinct from
the power of the directions to be given by the Central Government by way of guidelines on the question of policy
relating to national purpose. The dispute under sub-section (2) is only, that which may raise an issue whether the
question of policy relates to national purpose or not. The Commission has, in exercise of its powers under Section 26
(1) (e), defined the qualifications, which include the power to relax the qualification or to exempt in category on any
condition. The Central Government, therefore, under the Scheme of the U.G.C. Act, 1956, does not have powers to
modify or to annul the decision taken by the Commission in defining the qualifications or exemptions. The
Commission being an expert body constituted by the Central Government itself, the executive instructions of the
Government has to be informed by the reasons given by the Commission. It is submitted that no one sitting in the
Ministry has been given the powers even if it is exercised as the powers of the Central Government to override the
recommendations and the decision of the Commission as an expert body.
60. Shri Jitendra Kumar submits that the petitioners have been awarded Ph.D degrees in accordance with the then
prescribed procedure. Their Ph.D degrees are in no way less accredited qualifications than the Ph.D degree awarded
in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Regulations of 2009. The best of the professors and
academicians in the country hold Ph.D degrees awarded to them prior to prescription of the procedures in the
Regulations of 2009. They are no less qualified than, those who will be awarded Ph.D degrees in accordance with the
procedures prescribed in the Regulations of 2009.
61. It is further submitted that the change of procedure for admission and of the conditions under which the degree
may be awarded in accordance with the Regulations of 2009, with the object of standardising quality of higher
education, including the award of Ph.D degrees should not be taken to disqualify the Ph.D degrees awarded prior to
enforcement of Regulations of 2009, and to that effect the refusal to grant exemptions recommended by the University
Grants Commission, turned down by the Central Government is arbitrary, and discriminatory. The Central Government
has tried to devalue the Ph.D degrees awarded by the Universities including the best of the universities in the country
by declaring that such degree holders are not eligible to be appointed as lecturers.
62. It is submitted that NET/SLET/SET qualifications cannot substitute the research work on which the Ph.D degrees
are awarded. A simple examination cannot substitute the experience gained in the areas of research and writing of
dissertation. The wide knowledge and experience gained in research, cannot be substituted by any one written
examination. The NET examinations may test the knowledge but that by itself is not a substitute of research.
Although the petitioners are not challenging the prescription of NET/SLET/SET examinations to be one of the
qualifications, the denial of exemptions to Ph.D holders and those, who have been awarded Ph.D degree prior to the
3rd Amendment to the Regulations of 2009, amounts to hostile and invidious discrimination.
63. Shri Jitendra Kumar submits that the UGC in its meeting dated 8.7.2011 had considered the issue arising out of
minutes of the Standing Committee on UGC Regulations of 2009 and decided that the 11 points criteria laid down by
the Standing Committee on M. Phil/Ph.D Regulations, 2009 may be uploaded on UGC website and circulated to all
institutions of higher education for information and further action. The decision followed the recommendations of the
Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. S.P. Thyagrajan, which had resolved that if any of six conditions
out of eleven in award of Ph.D degree prior to 11.1.2009 has been complied with, such Ph.D candidates would
become eligible for NET exemptions as and when they acquire their Ph.D degrees from those universities. The

Commission had adopted sufficient safeguards for accreditation of the Ph.D degrees and that its opinion could not be
overruled by the Central Government without sufficient material. The decisions taken by UGC were based upon the
opinion of experts whereas the Central Government has acted in ignoring them by an executive action without giving
cogent reasons.
64. Shri Jitendra Kumar submits that the Commission had recommended for withdrawing exemptions prospectively,
which means that those, who had been benefited by the exemptions appearing in NET/SLET/SET examinations, were
to be treated to be eligible for appointment as lecturer in the University. The Central Government completely
misunderstood the recommendations. It has treated the recommendation for applying exemptions prospectively, as if
the UGC had recommended for exemptions to be applied for retrospectively.
65. Shri R.B. Singhal, Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the Central Government states that the
powers of the Central Government under Section 20 will override the powers of making regulations under Section 26
(1) of the Act. Even if there is no requirement of taking previous approval of the Central Government, the Central
Government, being the highest decision making body in view of Section 20, can in national interest modify or annul
the decision of the Commission. He submits that after the enforcement of the 3rd Amendment to the Regulations, the
exemptions have lost their efficacy. The Central Government has now fixed the cut of date, which is valid and which
has also provided two years' time in which the persons having M. Phil/Ph.D could have appeared in NET/SLET/SET
examinations held twice a year. The request to continue the exemptions was turned down to maintain excellence in
teaching in higher education. It is submitted that the Court should not interfere in policy matters of the State specially
where the Central Government is concerned with raising standards and maintaining excellence in teaching in
institutions of higher learning. It is submitted by him that on the reasons given by the Madras High Court and Delhi
High Court, the Court should not interfere in the matter.
66.Shri Ritvik Upadhyay appearing for the University Grants Commission and Shri A.K. Goyal along with Shri Gautam
Baghel appearing for the University of Allahabad, have taken the stand, incorporated in the counter affidavit on behalf
of the UGC and the University.
67. The submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the pleadings, the statutory scheme of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the resolutions passed by the UGC, and the recommendations of the
experts considered by the UGC have posed the following questions to be considered in this writ petitions:(i) Whether the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956 can issue
directions to overrule the Regulations made by the UGC under Section 26 (1) (e), defining the qualifications, that
should ordinarily be required to be possessed by any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University, for
which under Section 26 (2) of the UGC Act, 1956, the previous approval of the Central Government is not required?
(ii) Whether the exemption given by UGC to those, who have been awarded Ph. D degrees prior to 31.12.2009 i.e. the
date of enforcement of the Regulations of 2009, is a question of policy relating to national purpose on which the
directions issued by the Central Government under Section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956 will be binding on the UGC?
(iii) Whether the power to issue directions by Central Government under Section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956, is a
special power, which overrides the general powers of the UGC to make regulations with regard to qualifications of the
teachers to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University?
(iv) Whether the UGC as an expert body constituted with specialists in laying down standards in coordination of
education, can be given directions by the Central Government in its executive powers, overriding the opinion and the
request made by it to allow those, who have been awarded Ph.D. prior to enforcement of the Third Regulation of 2009,
and thereafter Regulations of 2010?
(v) Whether the petitioners with Ph.D. degrees in the year 2009 and 2003 respectively, have legitimate expectations
to be considered for teaching post in the University even if they have not passed NET/SLET/SET examination?
(vi) Whether the resolution of the UGC in its meeting dated 8.7.2011 considering the report of Prof. S.P. Thyagarajan
Committee to the effect that the University has satisfied 6 out of 11 point criteria for evaluation of their Ph.D. degrees,
should be made entitled to be considered for appointment on teaching post in the Universities, and its resolutions vide
Agenda Item No.6.04 and 6.05 in its 468th meeting held on 23.2.2010, is binding upon the Universities?
(vii) Whether the resolution of the UGC in its 471st meeting at Agenda Item No.2.08 dated 12.8.2010 recommending
the Regulations to be prospective in nature has been misinterpreted by the Central Government in taking a different
view in the letter of the Addl. Secretary (Higher Education) dated 3.11.2010?
(viii) Whether the petitioners have a right to be considered for appointment as Lecturer for guest faculties in the
Department of Sanskrit of the University of Allahabad for which the advertisement provides that the UGC norms will be
applicable to the selections?.
68. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 was enacted by the Parliament to make provision for coordination
and determination of standards in Universities and for that purpose to establish the University Grants Commission.
The composition of the Commission under Section 5 of the Act includes a Chairman, a Vice Chairman and 10 other
members. The Chairman shall be chosen under sub-section (2) from amongst persons, who are not officers of the
Central Government or of any State Government. Of the other members sub-section (3), (a) to (c) provides that two
shall be chosen from amongst the officers of the Central Government to represent that Government; not less than 4
shall be chosen from among the persons, who are at the time, when they are so chosen, teachers of Universities;
and remainder shall be chosen from among persons(i) who have knowledge of, or experience in agriculture, commerce, forestry or industry;
(ii) who are members of the engineering, legal, medical or any other learned profession; or

(iii) who are Vice-Chancellors of Universities or who, not being teachers of Universities are, in the opinion of the
Central Government, educationists of repute or have obtained high academic distinctions;
69. The proviso to the sub-section provides that no less than one half of the number chosen under this clause shall be
from among persons who are not officers of the Central Government or of any State Government. Section 12 of the
Act provides that it shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in consultation with the Universities or other
bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of University education and for
the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities, and for the
purpose of performing its functions the Commission has been authorised in clause (a) to (j) the powers to inquire into
the financial needs of Universities; allocate and disburse, out of the Fund of the Commission, grants for the
maintenance and development or both of any specified activities of the Universities, the Commission can also
establish in accordance with the Regulations made under the Act under sub-section (ccc), institutions for providing
common facilities, services and programmes for a group of Universities or the Universities recommend to any
University under sub-section (d) the measures necessary for improvement of the University education and advice the
University upon the action to be taken for the purposes of implementing such recommendations.
70. The UGC is also empowered to advice any authority under sub-section (f), advice the Central Government or any
State Government or Universities under sub-section (g) on any question, which may be referred to the Commission by
the Central Government or the State Government or the University as the case may be. Under the residuary powers
the Commission under sub-section (j) performs such other functions as may be prescribed or may be deemed
necessary for the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or
conducive to the discharge of such function.
71. The UGC has been authorised under Section 12 (A) to regulate the fees, and prohibits under Section 12 (B) for
giving grant to any University which is not declared by the Commission fit to receive such grant; withdrawal under
Section 14 from the University the grants proposed to be made out of the fund of the Commission. The right to confer
degrees under Section 22 (1) is to be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central
Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, or an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 or an institution
specially empowered by an act of parliament to confer or grant degrees. No institution under Section 23 whether a
corporate body or not, other than a University established or incorporated under a Central Act or Provincial Act or
State Act shall be entitled to have the word 'university' associated with its name in any manner whatsoever. Section
25 confers power on the Central Government to make rules and Section 26 gives powers to the UGC to make
Regulations.
72. The powers given to the UGC vide Section 26 (1) of the Act consist with the Act and the Rules made thereunder,
fall in two categories. Whereas powers under Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (h), (i) and (j), can be exercised under subsection (2) with the previous approval of the Central Government, the powers under clause (e), (f), (g) may be
exercised without seeking previous approval of the Central Government. Sub-section (3) gives powers to the UGC to
give retrospective effect to the Regulations except in case of Clause (i) and (j) regarding fees, which may be charged
and scales of fees in accordance with which the fees may be charged by a college and specifying manner in which
the enquiry may be conducted under sub-section (4) of Section 12A of the Act with a rider that no retrospective effect
shall be given to any regulations so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person, to whom such Regulation
may be applicable.
73. The powers of the UGC under Section 26, noticeably do not require the previous approval of the Central
Government, where the UGC defines the qualifications under clause (e) 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 instructions, defining under clause (f) the minimum standards of instructions for the grant of any
degree by the University and (g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the coordination of work or facilities in
Universities.
74. Section 20 (1) of the Act falling in Chapter-IV; provide that 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. This power to issue directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes,
may include the policy of the Central Government formulated by it in accordance with law after adopting a consultative
process. This power may be used by the Central Government, in special cases, where it has decided to adopt certain
guidelines for the purposes of coordination and determination of standards in the Universities. It refers to the
guidelines on question of policy relating to national purposes and on which if there is any dispute under sub-section
(2), the decision of the Central Government is to be final. The conflict, if any, on the question of policy relating to
national purposes is subject to the final determination of the Central Government. The nature of the power, ordinarily
presumes that it has to be exercised by way of guidelines for national purposes, and not to be utilised for overruling or
setting aside the decisions taken by the Commission on any reasoning different than the one adopted by the UGC.
75. The Commission by its own composition powers and nature of duties is an expert body and its resolutions unless
they are not inconsonance of the national policy of education made by the Central Government, must be treated with
respect, which must be given to the opinion of experts.
76. Under the scheme of the UGC Act, 1956 the UGC as an expert body has been provided with all the powers of
coordination and determination of standards of education in Universities. The power of disbursement of grant is to
check the Universities, whether they are created by a Central or Provincial Statutes or recognised by the UGC for the
purposes of awarding degrees. The resolutions passed by UGC in its meeting, are not ordinarily to be interfered with
by the Central Government unless they are contrary to the national policy of education and are followed by a
consultative discussion with the UGC. In our opinion the Central Government has not been given the power under
Section 20 (1) to override or overrule the decisions taken by the UGC specially in respect of Regulations under
Section 26 (1) (e), (f), (g), which do not require the prior approval of the Central Government.
77. There can be no doubt that the NET/ SLET/ SET has been prescribed as accredited test on the recommendations
of Prof. R.C. Mehrotra Committee, accepted in the Vice Chancellor's conference held in 1989, to determine common
standards of eligibility for teaching posts, and its acceptance by the UGC. The Regulations of 1991 notified on
19.9.1991, the NET qualification or other eligibility test for Lecturers conducted by CSIR was considered to be

essential with the relaxation to be made only by Universities with the prior approval of the Commission. In University
of Delhi v. Raj Singh (Supra) the Supreme Court while upholding the requirement of NET as a condition for
appointment as teachers to the University, put a note of caution that there must be highly qualified men and women
in the country to serve their chosen field, who would be willing to become lecturers. While appreciating the objective
of the Regulations, the exemptions to be provided by the University were upheld. The UGC by Circular dated
10.2.1993 extended the exemption to those, who have been awarded Ph.D. degrees and all candidates, who have
been awarded Ph.D. degrees upto 31st March, 1991 including those, who will submit their Ph.D. degrees upto 31st
December, 1993 vide its Circular dated 10.2.1993. The date was extended to 31.12.1992 for M.Phil. degrees by
Circular dated 15.9.1993. Once again on 21.6.1995 the Regulation of 1991 were amended by adding a proviso
exempting those, who have submitted Ph.D. thesis or passed M.Phil. examination by 31st December, 1993.
78. The UGC in its wisdom, and within its powers by a notification dated 24.12.1998 left the exemption to the Ph.D.
holders from NET or to require NET as desirable or essential qualifications for appointment of Lecturers, to the
Universities with the prior approval of the Commission.
79. Once again the UGC exercised its powers under Section 26 (1) (e) and (g) read with Section 14 of the Act to
make the Regulations of 2000 circulated on 4.4.2000, superseding the Regulation of 1991 providing for NET
qualifications, except where the NET is not being conducted or enough candidates are not available with NET
qualifications. By first amendment to the Regulations in the year 2002, once again the UGC granted exemptions from
NET to those, who have completed M.Phil. degree by 31st December, 1993 or have submitted Ph.D. thesis to the
University in the concerned subject on or before 31st December, 2002.
80. The Central Government constituted Prof. Mungekar Committee to consider the desirability of these exemptions
for post graduate level teaching. The Committee submitted its report on 3.4.2006, which was considered by UGC in
its 428th meeting on 11.6.2008. It approved the 2nd Amendment but allowed the exemptions to continue for those,
who have completed M.Phil. degree or have submitted Ph.D. thesis in the concerned subject. By the second
amendment to the Regulations of 2006 the candidates having Ph.D. degrees in the concerned subject were exempted
from NET for PG level and UG level teaching and candidates having M.Phil. degree in the concerned subject were
exempted from NET UG level teaching only.
81. The Central Government requested UGC by its letter dated 21.2.2008 to furnish its comments on the final report
of Prof. Mungekar Committee, which recommended NET to be retained as compulsory requirement for appointment of
Lecturer at both under graduate and post graduate level irrespective of possessing M.Phil. or Ph.D. degree. It also
recommended the NET Bureau to be converted into an independent autonomous institutions. The UGC in its meeting
dated 21.5.2008 considered the final report and resolved to note that its decision will have wider implications, and
decided to have the views of the Empowered Committee for strengthening of basic science education and also the
views of UGC Pay Committee. This resolution in its 448th meeting on 18/19th June, 2008 was followed by 449th
meeting held on 21.7.2008. After considering the report of Prof. Mungekar Committee; the UGC Pay Review
Committee and the Empowered Committee for considering the basic science research, the UGC resolved that NET/
SLET or Ph.D. shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment of Lecturers. The candidates, who were
already registered by M.Phil and completed the same upto 30th June, 2009 exempted from NET from UG teaching,
however, NET/ SLET shall be compulsory for candidates completing their M.Phil on or after 1st July, 2009. The UGC
also resolved to follow new procedure of standardization of Ph.D. by 30th June, 2009, for which Regulations were
issued by UGC within three months. These new guidelines included eligibility for conducting M.Phil/ Ph.D. Degree,
eligibility criteria for Ph.D. supervisor, procedure for admission, allocation of supervisor, course evaluation and
assessment methods etc. In the 454th meeting dated 10/11th July 2008, the UGC again considered the matter in the
light of the order of the Central Government following the interim order passed by the Nagpur Bench of Mumbai High
Court and recommended exemption from NET for such candidates as recommended by the Mungekar Committee
upto June, 2009, for M.Phil. candidate and June, 2011 for Ph.D. candidate. This resolution brought about the 3rd
Amendment in the Regulation of 2008. We may observe here that even Mungekar Committee had recommended
exemption of Ph.D. candidate, who had been awarded Ph.D. degree upto June, 2011, from NET, and that UGC has
taken into consideration its recommendations, when it accepted that those candidates, who have been awarded
Ph.D. degree in compliance of the Regulations of 2009 to be exempted from requirement of NET/ SLET. It was not
found necessary by the UGC to once again clarify or to incorporate in the 3rd Amendment of the Regulations
published on July 11th/ July 17th, 2009, that those, who have been awarded M.Phil, Ph.D. degrees prior to
enforcement of Regulation of 2009, shall remain exempted.
82. It is at this stage that the Central Government intervened by its letter dated 16.7.2009 and made a clarification
that those persons, who are working as teachers in adhoc capacity but are not NET qualified shall be given two years'
period and four attempts to qualify NET/ SLET. It further clarified that UGC may delegate to the University the process
of assessment of Ph.D. qualification that are eligible for exemption from mandatory NET/ SLET while adhering to the
norms laid down by the UGC Regulations namely exemptions to those persons, who have obtained their Ph.D. after
following the procedure of admission test, mandatory course work and evaluation by eminent external examiners. The
condition no.(iii) provided that where the University has in place a regular process of admission the degree of Ph.D.
from such University shall be exempt from one of the two conditionality in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of
these processes at M.Phil. and Ph.D. levels and even in such situation other condition of evaluation shall be
mandatory.
83. The Central Government once again issued an order on 30.3.2010 directing UGC not to take up specific case for
exemption from the application of NET Regulation of 2009; further the State Regulations have come into force for
either specific persons or for a specific university/ institution/ college from the enforcement of the 3rd Amendment
Regulations, 2009 and directed UGC to make appropriate amendment to the Second Proviso to Clause-2 of the
University Regulation, 2002 to give full effect to the policy directions issued by the Central Government on 12th
November, 2008 (following the interim orders passed by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court), directing UGC not
to give any blanket or general exemption to any university/ institution deemed to be university, unless the Ph.D.
degree awarded by it, is in all disciplines or programme of the same level and of rigour in terms of standard and
quality as laid down by the Commission for each discipline under the Regulations for the purpose and further subject
to the University/ institution continuing to comply with the Regulations.
84. The Central Government, thereafter, issued the communication dated 11.8.2010, regarding adhoc teachers giving
them two more attempts or maximum one year to be eligible to continue in their teaching profession. The 3rd

Amendment to the Regulation 2009 was thereafter superseded by Regulation of 2010 providing in Para 3.3.1 that
NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition, provided that candidates, who are or have been
awarded Ph.D. degree in accordance with the UGC (minimum standards) and procedure for award of Ph.D. degree
Regulation 2009 shall be exempted from requirement of NET/SLET/ SET for recruitment and appointment of Asstt.
Professor or equivalent positions in University/colleges. The UGC considered the Regulations of 2010, for
appointment and Regulation of 2009 for minimum standards for M.Phil./ Ph.D. degrees and resolved on 27.9.2010
that since the 3rd Amendment of 2009 had come into effect on 11.7.2009 and Regulations of 2 of 2010 have come
into effect on 10.6.2010, these are prospective and not retrospective in nature and that for all candidates having
M.Phil. prior to 10.7.2009 shall remain exempted and all candidates, who have obtained Ph.D. on or before
31.12.2009 and those who had registered themselves for Ph.D. on or before 31.12.2009 and are subsequently
awarded Ph.D. degree shall remain exempted from requirement of NET. It is at this stage that the Central
Government issued the letter dated 3.11.2010 informing the Commission regarding the view of the Government and its
inability to agree with the decisions of the Commission.
85. We find that the Central Government in its letter dated 3.11.2010 virtually treated UGC as a subordinate body
working under its supervision and control, in observing that the resolutions of UGC on Agenda Item No.2.008 in its
471st meeting dated 12.8.2010 are against the letter and spirit of the Regulations issued by UGC from time to time
and in further observing that:- "the above mentioned resolution perhaps does not take into account the fact that
appointments, if any, pursuant to the date of coming into force of these regulations are bound to be prospective only.
Appointments can never be made with retrospective dates." The Central Government in its letter dated 3rd November,
2010 clearly overstepped its powers under Section 20 (1) in overruling UGC, which is an statutory body consisting of
experts constituted by the Central Government itself under the UGC Act of 1956.
86. The UGC as an expert body does not require the approval of the Central Government under Section 26 (e) of the
UGC Act of 1956, in making Regulations for the qualifications of teachers for teaching post in the University. It did not
transgress its limits in making the 3rd Amendment to the Regulations. The amendment is not retrospective in nature
and does not operate to disqualify those candidates, who were earlier qualified, and on which the Central Government
had never expressed any difference of opinion. There was absolutely no occasion for the Central Government to have
interfered with the decisions taken by the UGC, unless there were any such clear guidelines, by way of national
policy, which were violated by the UGC.
87. We find that not only the tenor of the letter dated 3.11.2010, signed by Shri Sunil Kumar, the Addl. Secretary,
Higher Education in the Ministry of Human Resource Development, is contemptuous, it is also clothed with executive
arrogance and official bias. The letter does not take into account consistent policy followed by UGC in respect of
qualifications of the teachers until the 3rd Amendment in the Regulation of 2009 made by it changed the procedure of
enrollment and the method of awarding Ph.D. degrees. All those, who were treated qualified for being appointed on
teaching posts on entry level were not to be disqualified on the enforcement of the 3rd Amendment of the Regulations
of 2009, and certainly not by the Regulations of 2010. The UGC has powers under sub-section (3) of Section 26 to
make Regulations with retrospective effect, but in such case it can not by the plain reading of sub-section (3),
prejudicially affect the interests of any person, to whom such Regulation may be (may have been) applicable. The
petitioners were qualified and treated to be eligible by UGC for appointment as Lecturers, having been exempted from
NET, when they were awarded Ph.D. degrees and when the new procedure for admission and the method of award of
Ph.D. degrees was not enforced. Their right to be considered as qualified for appointment in teaching position in
University could not be taken away by the Central Government by issuing directions overruling the decision of the
University Grants Commission taken in its various meeting after considering the reports of experts.
88. The Central Government is not an expert body, unless it is guided by the reports of the Committees constituted
by it. Having constituted Prof. Mungekar Committee, the recommendation of which were considered by the UGC, the
decision of the Central Government cannot be treated as decision of experts, which has an overriding effect or could
have overruled the decision taken by the UGC.
89. We find that in the discussions which followed, the UGC made, looking into the unwarranted aggressive attitude
of the Central Government, appointed Prof. Thyagarajan Committee, and having considered its report resolved that if 6
out of 11 new conditions of admission and award of Ph.D. are followed, such Ph.D. holders would be exempt from
NET. This recommendation was not accepted by the Central Government.
90. In University of Delhi vs. Raj Singh (supra) the Supreme Court held in paragraph-20 that UGC Act is enacted
under the provisions of Entry 66 to carry out the objective thereof. It's short title, in fact, reproduces the words of Entry
66. A duty is cast upon the Commission to take all such steps as it may think fit, for the determination and
maintenance of standards of teaching. These are very wide-ranging powers and would comprehend the power to
require those, who possess the educational qualifications required for holding the post of lecturer in Universities and
Colleges to appear for a written test, the passing of which would establish that they possess the minimal proficiency
for holding such post. The need for such test is demonstrated by the reports of the Commissions and Committees of
educationists, which have taken note of the disparities in the standards of education in the various Universities in the
country. The holder of a post-graduate degree from one University is not necessarily of the same standard as the
holder of the same post-graduate degree from another University. That is the rationale of the test prescribed by the
said Regulations. The regulation falls squarely within the scope of Entry 66 and the U.G.C. Act inasmuch as it is
intended to co-ordinate standards and the U.G.C. Act is armed with the power to take all such steps as it may think
fit in this behalf. For performing its general duty and its other functions under the U.G.C. is invested with the powers
by the UGC Act specified in the various clauses of Section 12. These include the power to recommend to a University
the measures necessary for the improvement of University education and to advise in respect of the action to be
taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendations. The UGC is also invested with the power to perform
such other functions as may be deemed necessary by it for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as
may be incidental or conductive to the discharge of such functions. The Supreme Court then observed in the same
paragraph:"Section 26 authorises the U.G.C. to make regulations consistent with the U.G.C Act. and the rules made
thereunder, inter alia, defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required for any person to be appointed to
the teaching staff of a University, having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instruction
(clause (e) of sub-section (1); and regulating the maintenance of standards and the coordination of work or facilities in

Universities (clause (g). We have no doubt that the word 'defining' means setting out precisely or specifically. The
word 'qualifications', as used in clause (e), is of wide amplitude and would include the requirement of passing a basic
eligibility test prescribed by the UGC. The word 'qualifications' in clause (e) is certainly wider than the word
'qualification' defined in Section 12-A(1) (d), which in expressly stated terms is a definition that applies only to the
provisions of Section 12-A. Were this definition of qualification, as meaning a degree or any other qualification
awarded by a University, to have been intended to apply throughout the Act, it would have found place in the
definitions section, namely Section 2."
91. The Supreme Court thereafter observed in paragraph 21, that the regulations made by the UGC are made
applicable to a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, every
institution, including a constituent or an affiliated college recognised by the UGC in consultation with the University
concerned, and every institution deemed to be a University; the regulations are thus intended to have the widest
possible application, to serve the purpose intended, namely, to ensure that all applicants for the post of lecturer, from
whichever University they may have procured the minimum qualificatory degree, must establish that they possess the
proficiency required for lecturers in all Universities in the country and this is what clause 2 of the regulations
mandated. The Supreme Court then discussed the relaxations given in the prescribed qualifications and held as
follows:"The first proviso to clause 2 permits relaxation in the prescribed qualifications by a University provided it is made with
the prior approval of the U.G.C. This is because the said Regulations, made under the provisions of Section 26 (1)(e),
define the qualifications that are ordinarily and not invariably required of a lecturer. The second proviso to clause 2
makes the application of the said Regulations prospective. Clause 3 of the said Regulations provides for the
consequence of the failure of a University to comply with the recommendation made in clause 2 in the same terms as
are set out in section 14 of the UGC Act. The provisions of clause 2 of the said Regulations are, therefore,
recommendatory in character. It would be open to a University to comply with the provisions of clause 2 by employing
as lecturers only such persons as fulfill the requirements as to qualifications for the appropriate subject provided in
the schedule to the said Regulations. It would also be open, in specific cases, for the University to seek prior approval
of the UGC to relax these requirements. Yet again, it would be open to the University not to comply with the
provisions of clause 2, in which case, in the event that it failed to satisfy the UGC that it bad done so for good cause,
it would lose its grant from the UGC. The said Regulations do not impinge upon the power of the University to select
its teachers. The University may still select its lecturers by written test and interview or either. Successful candidates
at the basic eligibility test prescribed by the said Regulations are awarded no marks or ranks and, therefore, all who
have cleared it stand at the same level. There is, therefore, no element of selection in the process. The University's
autonomy is not entrenched upon by the said Regulations."
92. The Supreme Court, having upheld the order of the Delhi High Court by which it was directed that the Delhi
University was obliged under law to comply with the regulations made by the UGC by way of a clarification, observed,
taking note of the objections of Mr. Rao that there are men and women in the field of education, who possessed far
higher qualifications than the minimum prescribed for lecturers, who were willing to join the Delhi University but would
be deterred from doing so by reason of the test prescribed by the said Regulations and to which it observed that it
has no doubt that there must be highly qualified men and women in the country to serve their chosen field, would be
willing to become lecturers. There is no doubt that they would appreciate the sound objective of the Regulations and
would, therefore, not consider it infra dig to appear at and clear the test prescribed thereby. The Supreme Court also
observed that it has no doubt that in the case of eminently qualified men and women, the UGC would not hesitate to
grant prior approval to the relaxation of the requirement of clearing the test, and in that view of the matter in
paragraph-23 the Supreme Court observed that it did not think it necessary to consider whether or not the letter dated
17th June, 1987 addressed by the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government
of India to the UGC can be said to be a directive under Section 20 of the UGC Act concerning a question of policy
relating to national purposes.
93. In University of Delhi vs. Raj Singh's case the Supreme Court was considering the objections of the Delhi
University to the regulations as beyond the competence of the UGC on the grounds that the Delhi University is an
autonomous body, and that the Ordinances of the Delhi University, which prescribed qualifications, had to be treated
as laid down by the Parliament itself. The standard of other Universities has to be raised to the level of the standard of
Central University.
94. The reasoning given by the Supreme Court, in treating UGC as an expert body constituted for the purposes of
coordinating and laying down the standard of the Universities, helps us in this case in recording findings that the UGC
as an expert body, required to perform the statutory functions of prescribing the minimum qualifications for
appointment on teaching posts under Section 26 (1) (e) of the Act also possess the powers and duties to prescribe
relaxation. The opinion of the UGC in such case has to be treated as opinion of experts and unless there is anything
to the contrary, which does not serve the national interest, it does not fall within the power of Section 20 of the Act,
for Central Government to record its disagreement with such relaxation.
95. The Supreme Court has repelled that in the matters of laying down essential qualifications or in selections the
Court should not lightly interfere with the opinion of the experts.
96. In D.A.V. College vs. State of Punjab (1971) 2 SCC 269; University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govindarao 1980 3 SCC
418; J.P. Kulshreshtha (Dr.) vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University; and in Santosh Kumar vs. Secretary, Ministry of
Human Resources (1994) 6 SCC 579, the Supreme Court laid down a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to
dislodge decision of academic bodies. It would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of
academic matters to the experts, who are more familiar with problems they face than the courts generally can be.
97. The petitioners were awarded Ph.D degrees from Bundelkhand University, Jhansi in the year 2009 and from
University of Allahabad in the year 2003 respectively. At the time they were awarded Ph.D degrees, the 3rd
Amendment to the Regulations of 2009 dated 11.7.2009 had not come into force. The Regulations of 2010 came into
effect on 10.6.2010. These amendments were not made retrospective in nature, and thus all the scholars, who were
awarded Ph.D degrees on or before 10.7.2009, were exempted from the requirement of NET for the purposes of
appointment of Lecturer/Associate Professor. The UGC further resolved that all those candidates, who have either

obtained Ph.D on or before 31.12.2009 and such candidates, who had registered themselves for Ph.D on or before
31.12.2009, and were subsequently awarded Ph.D degree shall remain exempted from the requirement of NET for the
purpose of appointment of Lecturer/Associate Professor. These were the views and the opinions of experts, which
thought it proper after considering the various recommendations of the expert bodies to grant the exemptions. The
Central Government had no powers under the UGC Act to take a different view in its decision dated 30.3.2010.
98. The UGC again took into consideration in its meeting dated 12.8.2010 (471st meeting) and resolved on agenda
item no. 2.08 to recommend the regulations to be prospective in nature reiterating its decision taken in 468th
meeting.
99. The Central Government had no authority under the Act, to once again disagree with the recommendations of the
UGC in its letter dated 3.11.2010. The powers to issue directions by way of guidelines are not the same, which may
authorise an authority to cancel the resolutions of a statutory body. Wherever such powers are provided in the
Statutes, they are specific in nature. The scheme of the UGC Act, 1956 has not given the Central Government the
powers to supervise and control UGC, as it is a body constituted by the Central Government itself. The delegations of
the powers under the UGC Act, 1956 to the UGC are clear and specific and do not admit any supervision and control
by the Central Government.
100. We also find that the powers to prescribe qualifications also include the powers to provide for relaxation from
such qualifications, unless the relaxations are found to be contrary to the object and purpose, of prescribing the
minimum qualification. We do not find any justification to declare all the Ph.D holders, who are awarded Ph.D
degrees prior to 31.12.2009, ineligible for appointment as lecturer on the enforcement of 3rd Amendment to the
Regulations of 2009. The UGC rightly found that if the candidates, who have obtained Ph.D degrees prior to
31.12.2009, are disqualified for appointment, there will be hostile and invidious discrimination between those, who
have already obtained appointment with exemptions from NET/SLET/SET and those, who were either appointed on
adhoc basis or had applied and would be applying for teaching posts. The persons working on adhoc basis could not
be disqualified for being considered for regular appointment on the same posts and that it was not reasonable to
accept them to appear in NET/SLET/SET tests, to be treated as qualified and eligible for teaching posts. It is in this
context that the UGC had recommended withdrawal of exemptions to be prospective. The Central Government did not
understand the objections of UGC in making the resolution inoperative.
101. We do not find reference of any consultation with UGC or any expert body in the order of the Central Government
dated 3.11.2010, refusing to accord concurrence to the resolution of the Commission on agenda item no. 2.08 in the
471st meeting held on 12.8.2010. There is no explanation given in the counter affidavit as to whether the Central
Government made any attempt to consult the UGC, which is a statutory body consisting of experts in the field of
education before declaring its resolution to be against the letter and spirit of the regulations issued by the UGC itself.
The Central Government acted like a super-specialist body in interpreting the resolutions of the UGC, and overruling it
on its recommendations. The reasoning given in the letter dated 3.11.2010, that the appointments, if any, pursuant to
the date of coming into force of regulations are found to be prospective only, completely fails to take into account the
object and purpose of the resolution in the 471st meeting of the UGC. The UGC did not recommend the exemptions
to be retrospective nor did it recommend the Central Government to accord concurrence to any fresh exemptions to
be made prospective in nature. The limited exemptions were recommended to be prospective, with the object not to
disqualify those, who had completed Ph.D largely following the norms laid down in the 3rd Amendment to the
Regulations of 2009, and to avoid any hostile discrimination between the then categories without any objective to be
achieved.
102. With respect to opinion of the Delhi High Court in All India Researchers' Coordination Committee & ors vs. Union
of India & ors (Writ Petition (C) 13689/2009) decided on 6.12.2010, the order of the Central Government cannot be
treated as a policy directive to the UGC. The UGC had taken into consideration Professor Mungekar Committee's
recommendations and Dr. Thyagrajan Committee's recommendation in making the 3rd Amendment to the regulations
and was consistent in its approach for providing exemption to only those Ph.D holders, who were awarded Ph.D
degree prior to enforcement of the 3rd Amendment of the regulations. The matter of allowing the persons, who were
exempted by it and to which the Central Government had not expressed any disagreement, was in tune with the
policy decision taken by it to accept NET/SLET/SET as the minimum qualification. The Delhi High Court appears to
have fallen in error in holding that the exemptions given for a limited period until the 3rd Amendment in the regulations
came into force, would be contrary to the recommendations of the experts. The matter of exemptions was not an
issue referred to nor any opinion was expressed on it by Professor Mungekar Committee. The ratio of the judgment in
P.M. Bhargava v. University Grants Commission (2004) 6 SCC 661 is in favour of the petitioners as it was held in the
case that the academic matters should be left to expert bodies. The Supreme Court treated the decision of UGC
based on recommendations of an expert committee to include "Jyotir Vigyan" in the University curriculum to be left to
be considered and examined by the expert body, namely the UGC and the acceptance of its recommendation by the
UGC.
103. We also do not find ourselves in agreement with the judgment of Kerala High Court in Writ Petition No. 11789 of
2010 and other connected matters, annexed to the counter affidavit of the University of Allahabad. In this judgment
the petitioners with M. Phil qualification prior to 1993 were claiming to be eligible to apply for the post of Assistant
Professors in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Education service without imposing the condition of requirement of
NET/SLET/SET qualification. The rights were claimed on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which were not found
to be attracted on the ground of reasonableness of restrictions and with its exceptions found in public policy or in
public interest. The Central Government's refusal to the relaxation given by UGC was found to be against public
interest and also national policy to upgrade the standard of education in the country. We do not propose to agree with
the reasoning given in the judgment inasmuch as the University Grants Committee itself had recommended on
consideration of the reports of the experts to provide for NET/SLET/SET examination as the eligibility to standardise
the quality of teaching in the country. The exemptions were provided for variety of reasons to the Ph.D holders upto
31.12.2009 when the Third Amendments to the regulations were enforced. The decisions taken by the University
Grants Commission in its 468th and 471st meetings were not to dilute the eligibility conditions and to give away with
the NET/SLET/SET examinations as the eligibility, but to allow those, who were also given the benefit of exemptions
to be eligible for appointment. The exemptions to Ph.D were allowed to continue with restrictions that such
exemptions will be granted to only those who apply and are awarded Ph.D in terms of the strict conditions for
admission, evaluation and award of Ph.D in terms of the 3rd Amendment to the Regulations of 2009.

104. The exemptions to the Ph.D holders were not proposed to be withdrawn. The exemptions have been accepted to
only those Ph.D holders, who comply with the strict conditions of admissions, evaluation and award of Ph.D degrees
in terms with the 3rd Amendment to the Regulations of 2009. The question, therefore, was not of any breach of or
violation of national policy, or of not giving exemptions to the Ph.D holder from NET/SLET/SET examinations but to
avoid the discrimination between the persons, who were awarded Ph.D prior to the enforcement of the 3rd
Amendment of Regulations of 2009, and the strict conditions for award of Ph.D degree brought into force for the first
time in the Third Amendments to the Regulations of 2009 w.e.f. 31.12.2009.
105. CONCLUSIONS:
1.The Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 20 (1) of UGC Act, 1956, does not possess
powers and authority to set aside or annul the recommendations of the University Grants Commission, and the
regulations made by it under Section 26 (1) (e) of the Act defining the qualification, that should ordinarily be required
to be possessed by any person to be appointed to the teaching posts of the University, for which under Section 26 (2)
of the UGC Act, 1956, the previous approval of the Central Government is not required.
2. The exemptions given by UGC to those, who were awarded Ph.D degrees prior to 31.12.2009 before the
enforcement of the Regulations of 2009, is not a question of policy relating to national purpose on which the Central
Government could have issued directions under Section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956.
3. The UGC is an expert body constituted with specialists in laying down standards and for promotion and
coordination of University education. The recommendations made by it in the matters of qualifications and the limited
exemptions of such qualifications for appointment for teachers in Universities taken after constituting expert
Committees and considering their recommendations is not subject to supervision and control by the Central
Government. The Central Government in the matters of laying down minimum qualifications for appointment of
teachers in the University, does not possess any supervisory powers, to annul the resolutions of UGC.
4. The Ph.D holders, who were awarded Ph.D degrees prior to 31.12.2009, cannot be said to have legitimate
expectation maturing into any right to be considered for appointment on teaching posts in the University, without
obtaining the NET/SLET/SET qualifications, unless the UGC has provided for any exemptions.
5. The resolution on agenda item no. 6.04 and 6.05 in the 468th meeting of the UGC held on 23.2.2010, and the
resolution of UGC in its 471st meeting on agenda item no. 2.08 dated 12.8.2010 recommending the 3rd Amendments
to the Regulations of 2009 to be prospective in nature, is binding on the Universities including the University of
Allahabad.
6.The petitioners were awarded Ph.D degrees in the year 2009 and in the year 2003 respectively prior to enforcement
of the 3rd Amendment in the regulations, which came into force on 31.12.2009, and thus they are eligible, even if they
are not NET/SLET/SET qualified, if they have been awarded Ph.D degree with any six conditions out of 11
recommended by the UGC prior to 31.12.2009.
106. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioners are held eligible for consideration for appointment as Lecturer for
guest faculty in the Department of Sanskrit of the University, provided they satisfy any of the six tests out of eleven,
laid down by the UGC, and which are made essential for award of Ph.D degree under the 3rd Amendment of the
Regulations of 2009. It will be open to the University to consider from the material produced by the petitioners, that
they satisfy six out of eleven tests recommended by the University Grants Commission for award of their Ph.D.
Dt.06.4.2012
RKP/

Visit http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/StartWebSearch.do for more Judgments/Orders delivered at

Allahabad High Court and Its Bench at Lucknow. Disclaimer