JUDGMENT
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the
Petitioners as well as in the connected group of
petitions, which have raised a common challenge to the
Resolution of the Government of Maharashtra, issued on
18th October, 2001 and more particularly Clause 2 (E)
of the said resolution. The said clause reads as
under:
“——————————————-
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
2. By the above Resolution, the State Government
has laid down that the Lecturers, who were appointed
between the period from 19th September, 1991 to 11th
December, 1999, and without possessing the
qualifications of NET/SET, would be protected and they
are required to obtain the said qualifications by
December, 2003 or before and in case they failed to
acquire these requisite qualifications, within the said
period, they would be entitled for the pay scale of
Rs.8000-13500 till their superannuation. In addition,
they shall not be entitled for promotion, senior grade
or selection grade. Those who passed the NET/SET
examination, within the stipulated extended period,
would be entitled for senior/ selection grade from that
date and their seniority will be also counted
accordingly. Such of those Lecturers, who were
employed under the Government Colleges, their
continuation would be in consultation with the
Maharashtra State Public Service Commission. However,
it is stipulated in the said Government Resolution that
those Lecturers who did not possess the NET/SET
qualifications and have been appointed after 11th
December, 1999 shall not be given the benefit of
extended period to acquire the said qualifications and
their services are required tobe discontinued before
the completion of the probationary period. The
petitioners are aggrieved by this clause of termination
of service while on probation.
3. It is submitted that the said clause is
discriminatory and, thus, violating the guarantee
provided under Article 14 of the Constitution. The cut
off date viz. 11th December, 1999 is unreasonably
fixed and it has no nexus with the purpose sought tobe
achieved and, therefore, the decision of the cut off
date is arbitrary. The principles of equality between
similarly placed Lecturers viz. all those who have not
acquired NET/SET qualifications has been breached. In
any case, the Resolution dated 18th October, 2001 could
be made operative prospectively after 18th October,
2001 and it cannot be made applicable to all the
Lecturers who have been appointed prior to 18th
October, 2001. By referring to the earlier Government
Resolution dated 13th June, 2000 it has been submitted
that while adopting the regulations framed by the
University Grants Commission (the Commission, for
short) vide notification dated 4th April, 2000 the
State Government did not lay down such a clause
classifying the similarly placed Lecturers in different
categories. In para 7 of the said Resolution it was
stated that the rules framed by the Commission would be
made applicable from 4th April, 2000 and, therefore,
any appointment, which was made prior to 4th of April,
2000 could not be disturbed on the ground of lack of
qualification. In addition, the rules framed by the
Commission vide notification dated 4th April, 2000, do
not provide for any such clause of termination. A
Government Resolution could not be made applicable
retrospectively and it could be applicable only
prospectively i.e. from 18th October, 2001 and not
even prior to the said date, in view of the earlier
Resolution dated 13th June, 2000 by which a legitimate
expectation was created in the minds of those who were
appointed even after 4th April, 2000 that their
appointment may be regularised by following the
procedure, as laid down by the Regulations framed by
the Commission and, therefore, the impugned Resolution
also violates the doctrine of legitimate expectations.
All the petitioners have been selected by a duly
constituted selection committee and against sanctioned
permanent posts. All of them meet the basic
qualifications and failure to acquire the additional
qualifications cannot be a justifiable reason to remove
them from service or to declare them as ineligible to
hold the post they have appointed for. Some of the
petitioners belong to the reserved categories and they
have been appointed pursuant to the directives of the
State Government to fill in the reserved category quota
by way of special drive. It is urged before us that
the Government was required to consider the cases of
reserved category candidates on a different footing and
more particularly in keeping with the spirit of Article
371(2)(C) of the Constitution. Elaborating this
point, it has been submitted before us that adequate
facilities for acquiring the NET/ SET qualifications
are not available in the backward areas like the
Marathwada region and the State Government ought to
have considered this prevailing reality while issuing
the impugned Resolution. The State is required to give
special considerations to the prevailing inadequate
facilities in the backward regions and, therefore, it
would have been appropriate for the State Government to
extend the period for acquiring the qualifications on
par with those who have been appointed prior to 11th
December, 1999. In support of these submissions, the
learned counsel have relied upon the following
decisions:
(i) “Union of India and others V/s Hindustan
Development Corporation and others”
(ii) “Osmania University V/s R. Madhavi and others”
[AIR 1998 A.P. 130]
A strong reliance has been placed on a recent judgment
of the Calcutta High Court in the case of “Amiyakumar
Ghosh V/s State of West Bengal and others” [Writ
Petition No. 19293 (W) of 1999 with Writ Petition No.
12593 (W) of 2000].
The Petitioners also contend that the
regulations framed by the Commission are recommendatory
in nature and they do not have a statutory force. It
was not necessary for the Government of Maharashtra to
follow the said regulations as binding and, in any
case, if a concession is given to one set of Lecturers,
by extending the period for acquiring the additional
qualifications, the State Government ought to have
extended the same benefit to all those who have been
appointed prior to 18th October, 2001.
4. To examine the merit of these submissions, we
have to consider the status of the Commission and the
provisions of the University Grants Commission Act,
1956 (the UGC Act, for short).
5. The UGC Act came to be enacted under the
provisions of Entry 66 of List 1 of the 7th Schedule to
the Constitution, which entitles the Parliament to
legislate in respect of “coordination and determination
of standards in institutions of higher education or
research or in scientific and technical institutions”.
The preamble of the UGC Act, which repeats the words of
Entry No. 66, reads:
“An Act to make provisions for the
coordination and determination of standards
in Universities and for that purpose, to
establish a University Grants Commission.”
The UGC Act has come into force from 5th February,
1956. Section 2 of the UGC Act deals with definitions
and the Central Government has established the
Commission under section 4 of the UGC Act. Section 12
is regarding the functions of the Commission and it
says “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 coordination 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
functioning under this Act the commission may … …
(d) recommend to any university the measures necessary
for the improvement of university education and advice
the University upon the action tobe taken for the
purpose of implementing such recommendations.”
6. Section 12A enables the commission to regulate
fees and it prohibits donations in certain cases.
Subsection (1) of the said section deals with the
definitions of certain terms and the term “regulations”
means regulations made under the UGC Act. Subsection
(4) provides that if, after making, in relation to a
college providing for a specified course of study, an
inquiry provided in the manner in the regulations and
after giving such college a reasonable opportunity of
being heard, the commission is satisfied that such
college has contravened the provisions of subsection
(3), the commission may, with the previous approval of
the Central Government, pass an order prohibiting such
college from presenting any students then undergoing
such course of study therein to any university for the
award of the qualification concerned. Subsection (7)
states that the provisions of section 12A and the
Regulations for the purpose of the said section shall
have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the time being
in force. Section 12B states that no grant shall be
given by the Central Government, the commission or any
other organisation receiving any funds from the Central
Government, to a university which is established after
the commencement of the University Grants Commission
(Amendment) Act, 1972 unless the commission has, after
satisfying itself as to such matters as may be
prescribed, declare such university tobe fit for
receiving such grant. Section 13 empowers the
commission the right of inspection. Section 14 deals
with the consequences of failure of universities to
comply with the recommendations of the commission and
it states that if any university grants affiliation in
respect of any course of study to any college referred
to in subsection (5) of section 12A in contravention of
the provisions of that section and fails within a
reasonable time to comply with any recommendations made
by the commission under section 12 or 13 or contravenes
the provisions of any rule made under clause (f) or
clause (g) of subsection (2) of section 25 or of any
regulation under clause (e) or clause (f) or clause (g)
of section 26, the commission, after taking into
consideration the cause, if any, shown by the
university for such failure or contravention, may
withdraw from the university the grants proposed to be
made out of the fund of the commission. As per section
20, in the discharge of its functions under the UGC Act
the commission shall be guided by such directions on
questions of policy relating to national purpose as may
be given to it by the Central Government. Section 26
deals with the powers to make regulations and clause
(e) of subsection (1) thereto deals with the powers to
frame regulations defining the qualifications that
should ordinarily be required of any person tobe
appointed to the teaching staff of the university and
under clause (g), regulations can be framed for the
maintenance of standards of work or facilities in the
universities. As per subsection (3) of section 26 the
power to make regulations conferred by the said section
except clause (i) and clause (j) of subsection (1),
shall include the power to give retrospective effect
from a date not earlier than the date of commencement
of the UGC 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.
7. The commission framed the University Grants
Commission (Qualifications required of a person to be
appointed to the teaching staff of University and
Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991 in
exercise of the powers conferred by section 26(1)(e)
read with section 14 of the UGC Act and they were
notified on 19th September, 1991 in the Gazette of
India. They apply to every university established or
incorporated by or under the Central Act, Provincial
Act or any State Act. These regulations were framed on
the basis of the recommendations of a committee
appointed under the chairmanship of Prof. R.C.Mehrotra
(Mehrotra Committee). The Mehrotra committee had
recommended the following minimum qualifications for
appointment to the post of Lecturer:
(i) Qualifying at the national test conducted for
the purpose by the UGC or any other agency
approved by the UGC.
(ii) Masters degree with atleast 55% marks or its
equivalent grade and good academic record.
(iii) The minimum qualifications mentioned above
should not be relaxed even for candidates
possessing M.Phil., Ph.D. qualifications at
the time of recruitment.
After examining the recommendations of the Mehrotra
Committee as well as the commission, the Government of
India prepared a scheme for revision of pay scales of
teachers in the universities and colleges and other
measures of maintenance of standards in higher
education and by letter dated 17th June, 1987 the
Government of India forwarded the said scheme to all
the State Governments and the Union Territories with a
request to formulate detailed proposals for its
implementations. The scheme was revised by the Central
Government in 1988. In 1989 a conference of
Vice-Chancellors was held under the auspices of the
commission and one of the major recommendations made in
the said conference was “the national level test to
determine the eligibility for Lecturers be conducted,
when the State Government conducts such tests, while
accreditating them caution be exercised. … …”
Keeping these recommendations in mind the commission
framed the 1991 regulations superseding the earlier
regulations framed in 1982. In clause 2 of the 1991
regulations, qualifications for appointment to the
teaching posts were laid down in the following words:
(2) Qualifications: No person shall be appointed
to a teaching post in the University or in any
of the institutions, including constituent or
affiliated colleges which commenced under
clause (f) of section 2 of the University
Grants Act, 1956 or in any institution deemed
tobe a university under section 3 of the said
Act in any subject if he does not fulfill the
requirements as to the qualifications for the
appropriate subject as provided in Schedule 1;
Provided that any relaxation in the
prescribed qualifications can only be made by a
university in regard to the posts under it or
any of the institutions, including constituent
or affiliated colleges recognised under clause
(f) of section 2 of the aforesaid Act or by any
institution deemed tobe a university under
section 3 of the said Act, with the prior
approval of the University Grants Commission.
Provided further that these regulations
shall not be applicable to such cases where
selection through duly constituted selection
committees for making appointments to the
teaching posts have been made prior to the
enforcement of these regulations.
The qualifications laid down in Schedule 1 of
the 1991 regulations, framed by the commission for the
post of Lecturer were, as under:
Good academic record with at least 55% marks or
an equivalent grade at Masters level in the
relevant subject from an Indian University or
an equivalent degree from an foreign
university.
Candidates, besides fulfilling the
above qualifications, should have acquired the
eligibility test for Lecturers conducted by the
UGC, CSIR or similar tests accredited by the
UGC.
8. The 1991 regulations were adopted by the
Government of Maharashtra vide Government Resolution
dated 8th January, 1991 on the basis of the
Commissions letter dated 30th January, 1990 and for
the appointment of Lecturers in the university and
colleges the following qualifications were laid down:
University Lecturers:
(a) A doctorate degree or research of an equally
high standard;
(b) Good academic record with at least second class
i.e. in the seven point scale.
(c) Masters degree in a relevant subject from an
Indian University or an equivalent degree from
a foreign university.
Having regard to the need for developing
interdisciplining programs, the degrees in (a) and (b)
may be in relevant subject.
Collage Lecturers:
(a) An M.Phil. degree or a recognised degree
beyond the Masters level or published work
indicating capacity of a candidate for
independent research work. And
(b) Good academic record with at least second class
(C in the seven point scale) Masters degree in
a relevant subject from an Indian University or
equivalent degree from a foreign university.
Provided that if the selection
committee is of the view that the research work
of a candidate, as evident either from his
thesis or from his published work, is of a very
high standard it may relax any of the
qualifications prescribed in (b) above.
9. By a circular dated 10th February, 1993 the
commission granted exemption from appearing in the
eligibility tests to the following categories:
(a) All candidates who had passed UGC/ CSIR/ JRF
examination.
(b) All candidates who were already awarded the
Ph.D. degree.
(c) All candidates who were already awarded M.Phil.
degree upto 31st March, 1991.
(d) All candidates who would submit their Ph.D.
thesis upto 31st December, 1993.
By a further circular dated 15th June, 1993, in respect
of candidates falling in category (c), exemption from
appearing in the eligibility test was extended to
candidates who were awarded M.Phil degree up till 31st
December, 1992. By a notification dated 21st June,
1995, the 1991 regulations came tobe amended and the
following proviso was added below the requirement
regarding clearing the eligibility test for appointment
to the post of Lecturer:
“Provided that candidates who have submitted
Ph.D. thesis or passed the M.Phil.
examination by 31st December, 1993, are
exempted from the eligibility tests for
Lecturers conducted by UGC/ CSIR or similar
test accredited by the UGC.”
10. The Government of Maharashtra consequently
issued a Resolution dated 12th December, 1995 and
adopted these amended qualifications as well. Prior to
the said resolution the State Government had issued
another resolution dated 28th April, 1994 and followed
the changes made by the commission by its circular
dated 10th February, 1993 as well as 15th June, 1993
regarding exemption of NET/ SET examination in respect
of M.Phil and Ph.D. candidates. By the Resolution
dated 22nd December, 1995 the Government of Maharashtra
extended the date for acquiring the NET/ SET
qualifications to 31st March, 1996 and laid down that
those Lecturers who were appointed on or after 19th
September, 1991 without passing the NET/ SET
examination or M. Phil. examination upto 31st
December, 1993 or not completed Ph.D. till the same
date came to be governed by the qualifications as
prescribed by the commission and as amended in 1995
viz. passing the NET/ SET examination. It further
specifically stated that those appointees holding the
posts of Lecturer on account of non-availability of the
qualifying candidates shall be treated as adhoc and in
any case they would not be liable for removal from
service only on account of not qualifying the NET/ SET
examinations. However, until the time they would pass
the said examination, they would not be entitled for
the benefit of annual increments and such annual
increments would be released only after they passed the
examination.
11. The amended regulations of 1995 alongwith the
regulations of 1991 came to be superseded by the
Regulations framed in 2000 by the Commission and they
are called the University Grants Commission (Minimum
Qualifications Required For The Appointment and career
advancement of Teachers in Universities and
Institutions Affiliated to It) Regulations, 2000 (for
short, the 2000 Regulations). These regulations have
been adopted by the Government of Maharashtra vide its
Resolution dated 13th June, 2000, as observed herein
above. The qualifications clause in the newly framed
regulations reads as under:
“2. Qualifications:
No person shall be appointed to a teaching
post in the university or in any of the
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 tobe a university under section 3 of
the said Act in a subject if he/ she does
not fulfill the requirements as per
qualifications for the appropriate 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
selection of the candidates having had the
then requisite minimum qualification as were
existing at that time through duly
constituted selection committee for making
appointments to the teaching posts have been
made prior to the enforcement of these
regulations.”
Thus, the first proviso of Regulation 2 of the 1991
regulations regarding qualifications was replaced by
the amended proviso as set out hereinabove. Clause
1.5.3. of the annexure to the regulations pertains to
the qualifications for the pose of Lecturer and it
reads, thus:
“Good academic record with at least 55% of
the marks (or an equivalent grade) at
Masters degree level or an equivalent
qualification from an Indian or foreign
university. Candidates, besides fulfilling
the above qualifications should have cleared
National Eligibility Test for Lecturers
(NET) conducted by UGC or similar tests
accredited by the UGC.
Note:- 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 upto 31st December, 1993
are exempted from appearing in the
NET examinations.”
By Resolution dated 13th June, 2000 the Government of
Maharashtra adopted the 2000 Regulations and clause 7
of the said Government Resolution reads as under:
“——————————————-
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
12. By the impugned Resolution dated 18th of
October, 2001 the State Government has granted some
concessions/ protection to those who have been
appointed during the period from 19th September, 1991
to 11th December, 1999 and such protections have been
denied to those who have been appointed after 11th
December, 1999 and they face the eminent possibility of
removal from service, as has been apprehended by the
Petitioners. The cut off date 11th December, 1999 has
its origin in the Government Resolution of the same
date issued by the Stage Government for implementing
the Fifth Pay Commission Recommendations with effect
from 1st January, 1996 and also the Government of India
Scheme of 1998, which was circulated on 24th December,
1998. Clause 7 of the said Government Resolution is
regarding the recruitment and qualifications for the
teaching faculty. The qualifications for the post of
Lecturer were stipulated as under:
“Good academic record with atleast 55% of
the marks or an equivalent grade of (B) in
the seven point scale with later grades
O,A,B,C,D,E & F at the Masters degree level
in the relevant subject from an Indian
University or an equivalent degree from a
foreign university.
Besides fulfilling the above
qualifications, candidates should have
acquired the eligibility test (NET) for
Lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR or
similar test accredited by the UGC.”
A perusal of the Resolutions issued by the Government
of Maharashtra on 8th January, 1991, 11th December,
1999 and 13th of June, 2000 shows that the
qualifications as laid down by the Commission for the
appointment to the post of Lecturer have been in
verbatim followed except that in case of a Ph.D.
holder discretion was left with the universities
concerned for granting exemption regarding NET/ SET
examination as is evident from clause 7 of the
Resolution dated 11th December, 1999, which read as
under:
“7. Recruitment and Qualifications.- The
direct recruitment to the post of Lecturers,
Readers and Professors in the Universities
and Lecturers in Colleges shall be on the
basis of merit through all-India
advertisement and selections by the duly
constituted Selection Committees to be set
up as prescribed in UGCs Notification,
dated 24th December, 1998 under the
Statutes/ Ordinances of the concerned
University. Such Committees should have a
minimum of three experts, the head of the
concerned Department and the Principal of
the concerned College (in case of selection
of college teachers).
Recruitment of Teachers in Government
Colleges and Institutes of Sciences will be
regulated by respective recruitment rules
prescribed by the State Government in
consultation with Maharashtra Public Service
Commission.
The minimum qualifications required for
the post of Lecturers, Readers, Professors,
Assistant Directors of Physical Education,
Deputy Directors of Physical Education,
Directors of Physical Education, Assistant
Librarians, Deputy Librarians, Librarian,
and Registrars, will be those as prescribed
by the University Grants Commission &
accepted by State Government from time to
time.
The minimum requirements of a good
academic record, 55% of the marks at the
masters level and qualifying in the
National Eligibility Test, or an accredited
test, shall remain for the appointment of
Lecturers. It would be optional for the
University to exempt Ph.D. holders from NET
or to require NET in their case either as
desirable or essential qualifications for
appointment as Lecturers in the University
Departments and Colleges. The minimum
requirement of 55% should not be insisted
upon for Professors, Readers, Registrars,
Librarians, Deputy Librarians, Directors of
Physical Education, Deputy Director of
Physical Education for the existing
incumbents who are already in the University
system. However, these marks should be
insisted upon for those entering the system
from outside and those at the entry point of
Lecturers, Assistant Librarians, Assistant
Director of Physical Education.
A relaxation of 5% may be provided,
from 55% to 50% of the marks, at the
masters level for the SC/ ST category.
A relaxation of 5% may be provided,
from 55% to 50% of the marks to the Ph.D.
degree holders who have passed their
Masters degree prior to 19th September,
1991.
B in the 7 point scale with latter
grades O, A, B, C, D, E & F shall be
regarded as equivalent of 55% wherever the
grading system is followed.
The Ph.D. shall continue to be a
compulsory requirement for the designation
of Reader. However, for other categories,
like those of Registrars, Librarians and
Physical Education Directors, the Ph.D.
should be a desirable and not an essential
qualification.”
However, that discretion left with the University has
not been retained in the subsequent Government
Resolution dated 13th of June, 2000 or the impugned
Resolution and mainly because of the 2000 Regulations
framed by the Commission which have been adopted by the
State Government.
13. Regulation No. 2 of the 1991 Regulations
framed by the Commission opened with the words “no
person shall be appointed to a teaching post in
university or any of the institutions … … if he
does not fulfill the requirements as to the
qualifications for the appropriate subjects as provided
in Schedule 1. The Regulation, therefore, made a
declaration that unless a candidate possessed the
qualifications, as set out in Schedule 1 for the
concerned post, viz. the Lecturer, his appointment
shall not be made. It created a bar against the
appointments of candidates not fulfilling the
requirement of educational qualifications as set out in
Schedule 1 and in Schedule 1 the following
qualifications were formulated:
(a) good academic record with at least 55% marks
(or an equivalent grade) at Masters degree
level or an equivalent qualification for an
Indian or foreign university.
(b) Candidates, besides fulfilling the above
qualification, should have cleared National
Eligibility Test for Lecturers (NET) conducted
by UGC or similar tests accredited by the UGC.
There is only a provision for relaxation in terms of
first proviso under Regulation 2. This proviso states
that (a) relaxation in the prescribed qualifications
could be made by university, (b) in regard to the post
under it or any of the institutions, including
constituent or affiliated colleges recognised under
clause (f) of section 2 of the UGC Act or by an
institution deemed tobe an university under section 3
of the said Act and (c) with the prior approval of the
Commission. The Delhi High Court, upon a writ petition
filed by one Rajsingh had held that the 1991
Regulations were valid and mandatory and the university
was obliged under law to comply therewith. This
decision came tobe challenged by the University of
Delhi in Civil Appeal No. 1819 of 1994 which was
decided by the Apex Court on 8th September, 1994 i.e.
“University of Delhi V/s Raj Singh and others” . The Supreme Court, on analysing the
provisions of the Delhi University Act, the UGC Act and
Entry No. 63 and 66 of List 1 of Schedule 7 of the
Constitution held that (a) the first proviso to clause
2 permitted regularisation in the prescribed
qualifications by university provided it is made with
the prior approval of the UGC, (b) the second proviso
made the application of the said regulations
prospective; (c) clause 3 of the Regulations provided
for the consequences of the failure of the university
to comply with the recommendations made in clause 2 in
the same terms as are set out in section 14 of the UGC
Act; (d) the provisions of clause 2 of the said
Regulations are, therefore, recommendatory in character
and it would be open to an university to comply with
the provisions of clause 2 by employing as lecturer
only such person who has fulfilled the requirement as
to qualifications for the appropriate subject provided
in the schedule to the said Regulations. It would be
open, in specific cases, for the university to seek the
prior approval of the UGC to regularise these
requirements. Yet again it would be open to the
university not to comply with the provisions of clause
2 in which, in the even that it failed to satisfy the
UGC that it had done so for good cause, it would loose
its grants 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 leave. There is, therefore, no element of
selection in the process. The Universitys autonomy is
not entrenched upon by the said Regulations.
14. When the 2000 Regulations were framed by the
Commission on 4th April, 2000, clause 2 regarding the
qualifications remained the same and the first proviso
was amended. The relaxation in the prescribed
qualifications was envisaged only in respect of
subjects and in which NET is not being conducted or
enough number of candidates are not available with NET
qualifications for a specified period only. In
addition, these relaxations were required tobe made by
the Commission alone and not by the University
concerned as was the position in the earlier proviso
under the said clause in the 1991 Regulations. It
further clarified that relaxation would be given based
on sound justification and would apply to affected
Universities for a particular subject for the specified
period and no individual applications would be
entertained. In Schedule I where the qualifications
are prescribed for the post of Lecturer a specific note
has been added which clarified that though NET would
remain compulsory requirement for appointment of
Lecturer even for the candidates having Ph.D. degree,
the appointees with such qualifications or those who
have completed M. Phil. degree up to 31st December,
1993 are exempted from appearing in the NET
examination. Thus, the candidates who completed
M.Phil. degree or had submitted Ph.D.Thesis in the
concerned subject upto 31st December, 1993 are alone
exempted from appearing in the NET examination and
there is no other relaxation regarding qualifications
for appointment to the post of Lecturer.
15. In the case of “University Grants Commission
V/s Sadhana Chaudhary and others” relating to grant of exemption in
qualifications, in the 1991 Regulations, were raised
and more particularly the requirement regarding
clearing the eligibility test for the post of Lecturers
or similar test accredited by the U.G.C. The exemption
granted in favour of the M.Phil. or Ph.D. candidates,
akin to the one under the note, in Schedule I of the
2000 Regulations, was also a subject matter of
challenge and the Supreme Court held that granting of
such exemption did not run contrary to the requirement
prescribed by the Commission in the Regulations of 1991
read with circular dated 10th February, 1993 and 15th
June, 1993 which were applicable at the relevant time
and the amendment notification dated 21st June, 1995
was also upheld.
16. The Regulations framed by the Commission are
applicable to the universities in the State if the
State Government has adopted them by way of a
Government Resolution. The 1991 Regulations as well as
2000 Regulations have been adopted by the State
Government, and the State Government did not give any
other relaxation in addition to the relaxations already
provided under clause 2 of the 2000 Regulations. It
also laid down that the 2000 Regulations were being
implemented from 4th April, 2000. It was further
clarified that appointments made contrary to the
Regulations shall not be eligible to receive the grant
in aid from the State Government. The purport of this
Government Resolution was, therefore, clear and loud to
the universities as well as to the colleges/
institutions affiliated to them viz. you appoint the
teachers who meet the qualifications if you want to
receive the grant in aid from the State Government,
lest you do not receive any grants. The relaxation,
which was given by the State Government in the earlier
Government Resolution dated 11th December, 1999, was
only in respect of candidates with Ph.D.
qualifications i.e. on par with the 1991 Regulations
amended in 1995. However, this was not repeated in the
Government Resolution dated 13th June, 2000.
Nevertheless, the 2000 Regulations, granting exemption
to the M.Phil. Degree holders as well as the Ph.D.
candidates, are applicable in the State of Maharashtra
as well, even as at present. Besides this, there is no
other relaxation in terms of qualifications required
for the post of Lecturer. These Regulations are,
therefore, binding on the universities and their
affiliated colleges who are aided by the State
Government.
17. Amongst the petitioners, before us, there is no
doubt that none of them holds a Ph.D. degree or has
submitted thesis for Ph.D. prior to 31st December,
1993. None of them has completed the M.Phil. degree
and all of them do not possess the NET/SET
qualifications, as at present. The Petitioners, who
are before us, could be categorised in the following
groups:
(a) Appointees from 12th December, 1999 to 3rd
April, 2000.
(b) Appointees from 4th April, 2000 to 12th June,
2000.
(c) Appointees from 13th June, 2000 to 18th
October, 2001.
18. When the appointments are made to the post of
Lecturer they are initially appointed on probation for
a period of two years which is required to be extended
for a further period of one year under the concerned
universitys statutes. The Petitioners, who were
appointed on or after 11th December, 1999, were
admittedly on probation as on 18th of October, 2001
when the impugned Resolution was issued by the State
Government. The first group of appointees (appointees
from 11th December, 1999 to 3rd April, 2000) were
admittedly covered by the 1991 Regulations as amended
in 1995 by the Commission and which was amendment was
upheld by the Apex Court in the case of University
Grants Commission (supra). They do not possess the
qualifications prescribed in terms of clause 2 read
with the Schedule annexed to the Regulations for the
post of Lecturer. The relaxation, which was
contemplated in educational qualifications for
appointment to the post of Lecturers, was only in term
of the first proviso thereunder. There is nothing on
record to show, before us, that any of the universities
had submitted a proposal for approval to the Commission
in respect of any post or in respect of any Petitioner.
It was necessary in respect of such candidates that
before the approval was granted, by the concerned
universities, to such appointments, proposals were
moved to the Commission for seeking approval in advance
in relaxation of qualifications, so long as the
university is concerned wanted to remain within the
purview of the U.G.C. Act and the colleges concerned
were desirous for grant-in-aid from the State
Government for these appointments. If the colleges/
institutions concerned did not expect any grants from
the State Government, they were free to appoint such
unqualified Lecturers and the Commission would not come
in their way as held by the Apex Court in the case of
University of Delhi (supra). As long as the
universities concerned wanted tobe covered under the
provisions of the U.G.C. Act and the colleges/
institutions affiliated to these universities were
seeking grant-in-aid from the State Government, it was
imperative that they complied with the provisions of
the 1991 Regulations for these appointments. The
appointments so made were per-se illegal inasmuch as
they did not meet the educational qualifications and
the relaxation clause was not complied with. The
qualifications prescribed vide resolution dated 11th
December, 1999 did not provide for any relaxation in
qualifications save and except those provided in the
1991 Regulations, as amended in 1995.
19. When the 2000 Regulations were framed by the
Commission, the qualifications were maintained and the
relaxation clause was modified thereby vesting the full
authority with the Commission alone and the role of the
Universities concerned, for granting approval, was
removed. These Regulations have been adopted by the
State Government by the Resolution dated 13th June,
2000 but retrospectively. The appointees in the second
group i.e. from 4th April, 2000 to 13th June, 2000
have not brought on record whether any such proposals,
as contemplated under proviso 1 of clause 2, of these
Regulations were moved before the U.G.C. for the
respective subjects. The amended Regulations have
considered the contingencies in different subjects and
made a provision for granting relaxation on having been
satisfied regarding the existence of such difficulties
or lack of infrastructure etc. and that too for a
limited period. In subjects like Urdu, Pali etc.
where postgraduation studies are conducted by the Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University at Aurangabad,
there is a possibility that the necessary facilities
for NET/ SET examinations may not be available or the
number of candidates, who have successfully completed
these qualifications, is inadequate. In such an
eventuality, the Commission has provided for granting
relaxation. The universities concerned are required to
approach the Commission making out a case for
relaxation in the concerned subjects before the subject
appointments are approved by them and if the approvals
are granted, without complying with the requirements of
the said proviso, obviously the appointments would be
illegal being contrary to the Regulations.
20. So far as the third group is concerned, we have
no hesitation in our mind to hold that these
appointments have been made in flagrant violation of
the 2000 Regulations. The State Government virtually
issued a warning to the Universities, Colleges and/ or
Institutions not to appoint Lecturers who did not meet
the qualifications, as prescribed by the Commission
vide resolution dated 13th June, 2000. When these
appointments were made the amended proviso to Clause 2
of the 2000 Regulations was known to every one
concerned, including the appointees, and they ought to
be aware that they were not qualified for these
appointments unless approval from the U.G.C. was
obtained in advance. In none of these three groups the
Universities concerned have complied with the
requirements of first proviso of clause 2 of the 1991
Regulations as well as 2000 Regulations and all the
colleges/ institutions where the petitioners are
working, are aided institutions and, therefore, these
Regulations are binding on them.
21. Shri Shah, the learned senior counsel, who
spearheaded the arguments on behalf of all the
Petitioners, addressed us on the doctrine of promissory
estoppel. In the case of “Council of Civil Services
Union V/s Minister for the Civil Services” [(1984) 3
All ER 935] such an issue arose for considerations and
the Court observed:
“An aggrieved person was entitled to invoke
judicial review if he showed that a decision
of a public authority affected him by
depriving him of some benefit or advantage
which in the past he had been permitted to
enjoy and which he could legitimately expect
tobe permitted to continue to enjoy either
until he was given reasons for its
withdrawal and the opportunity to comment on
those reasons or because he had received an
assurance that it would not be withdrawn
before he had been given the opportunity of
making representation against the
withdrawal.”
Further, in Breen V/s Amalgamated Engineering
Union” [(1971) 2 Queens Bench Division 175] turning
down the plea of promissory estoppel the Court
observed:
“If a man seeks a privilege to which he has
no particular claim – such as appointment to
some post or other – then he can be turned
away without a word. He need not be heard.
No explanation need be given. … … ”
22. In the case of “Osmania University V/s R.
Madhavi and others” [AIR 1998 A.P. 130], as relied
upon by the Petitioners, the Division Bench, while
dealing with the doctrine of legitimate expectations,
observed, thus:
“6.Coming to the scope of judicial
review when a challenge is made on the basis
of the doctrine of legitimate expectation,
after referring to several judgments of the
Courts in England, the Supreme Court pointed
out, the doctrine of legitimate expectation
does not give scope to claim relief
straightway from the administrative
authorities as no crystallised right as such
is involved. The protection of such
legitimate expectation does not require the
fulfillment of the expectation where an
overriding public interest requires
otherwise. In other words where a persons
legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by
taking a particular decision then
decision-maker should justify the denial of
such expectation by showing some overriding
public interest. Therefore even if
substantive protection of such expectation
is contemplated that does not grant an
absolute right to a particular person. It
simply ensures the circumstances in which
expectation may be denied or restricted. A
case of legitimate expectation would arise
when a body by representation or by past
practice aroused expectation which it would
be within its powers to fulfil. The
protection is limited to that extent and a
judicial review can be within those limits.
… …”
By circular dated 28th April, 1994 relaxation
was granted for NET/ SET qualifications to those
lecturers who were appointed between the period from
27th February, 1989 to 31st March, 1990. Similarly,
those who were appointed upto 19th September, 1991 and
had possessed Masters degree with 55% or more marks
were also exempted from acquiring the M.Phil. degree.
The period for acquiring NET/ SET qualifications was
also extended upto 31st March, 1996 and failure to do
so, on the part of these appointees prior to 19th
September, 1991, would result in termination of their
services, was also made clear. However, this
relaxation was subsequently withdrawn by Resolution
dated 22nd December, 1995 by the State Government and
thus the promise of date of extension upto 31st March,
1996 to acquire the NET/ SET qualifications was finally
withdrawn by the said Resolution. This decision of the
State Government was again reiterated and confirmed by
the subsequent Resolution dated 11th December, 1999.
The appointees on or after 12th December, 1999 can not
claim that any promise was made by the State Government
to relax qualifications and more particularly the
passing of NET/ SET examinations. None of them can,
therefore, invoke the doctrine of legitimate
expectations.
23. The scheme of the 1991 Regulations as well as the
2000 Regulations, as analysed by us, has not aroused
any expectations except the relaxation/ concession
clause under the first proviso to clause 2 thereunder.
Similarly, by the amendments carried out in 1995 the
Commission granted some concessions in respect of the
candidates who possessed the M.Phil./ Ph.D.
qualifications or who had submitted their thesis before
the cut off date. There were no promises of any
concession or any relaxation in case of other
candidates who did not have the qualifications of
M.Phil. or Ph.D., from passing the NET/ SET
examination and a discretion was vested with the
University in the 1991 Regulations to approach the
Commission for approval in advance for obtaining
approval in respect of some posts. This concession was
subsequently modified in the 2000 Regulations in
respect of subjects but the Universities power to
grant such relaxation is removed and the power is now
vested with the Commission. The Government of
Maharashtra, while adopting these Regulations by the
respective resolutions, has not gone beyond the
Regulations and none of the Resolutions issued on 11th
December, 1999 and thereafter have contemplated any
concessions to the candidates similarly placed to the
Petitioners. The State Government did not hold a
promise at any time after 11th December, 1999 to the
effect that the candidates not possessing the NET/ SET
qualifications would be considered for appointment as
Lecturers in the private aided colleges or in the
colleges run by the State Government. The arguments
were perhaps based on the premises that the State
Government had made some promise of concession but the
record does not support this presumption. We,
therefore, hold that the doctrine of legitimate
expectation is not applicable while deciding the
legality of the impugned Resolution dated 18th October,
2001.
24. We shall now proceed to examine each of the
clauses of the Government Resolution dated 18th of
October, 2001. In the first clause the resolution
dated 22nd December, 1995 came tobe withdrawn.
In the second clause it has been stated that
the Lecturers, who did not possess the NET/ SET
qualifications and who were appointed during the period
from 19th September, 1991 to 31st December, 1993 under
the aided, unaided colleges/ institutions through the
selection committee would not be discontinued. They
are, on the other hand, required to obtain these
qualifications latest by December, 2003. We do not
find anything wrong with these conditions.
“——————————————-
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
——————————————–
It is the same doctrine of legitimate expectation which
perhaps weighed in the mind of the Government. With a
benevolent intention the Government decided to extend
this outer limit upto December, 2003 for all those who
have been appointed upto 11th December, 1999 though
these concessions were in fact withdrawn vide
Resolution dated 22nd December, 1995. However, a
finality to this withdrawal was given vide the
Resolution dated 11th December, 1999 only, in view of
the following preamble thereto.:
“Government of Maharashtra had approved
the implementation of revised pay scales for
University and College teachers with effect
from 1st January, 1986 vide Government
Resolution, Education and Employment
Department No. NGC 1286/(1224)/UNI.4, dated
27th February, 1989. After appointment of
the Fifth Pay Commission for Central
Government employees, the University Grants
Commission had appointed a Committee under
Chairmanship of Prof. Rastogi to examine
the present structure of emoluments and
conditions of service of University and
College teachers. After considering the
Rastogi Committees Report, the University
Grants Commission submitted its
recommendations to the Government of India.
After examination of this report, Government
of India evolved a scheme of pay revision
for the University and College Teachers and
other measures for improvement of standards
in higher education. By their letter dated
27th July, 1998, and subsequent letters
dated 22nd September, 1998 and 6th November,
1998, the Government of India accepted and
approved the recommendations of UGC to
Central Universities and Colleges
thereunder. Similarly, the Government of
India recommended to the state Government to
implement this scheme in the State
Universities and affiliated Colleges. The
question of implementing Government of
Indias scheme of revision of pay scales of
University and College teachers and other
relevant guidelines and notifications issued
by U.G.C. from time to time was under
consideration of the State Government.
After careful consideration of the
Government of Indias Package Scheme, 1996
for maintenance of standards in Higher
Education, the State Government has now
decided to implement the revised pay scales
and the terms and conditions of service as
detailed below.”
25. The next sub clause of clause 2 viz. subclause
(b) states that those lecturers who are not successful
in obtaining the NET/ SET qualifications by December,
2003 will be continued in service till their retirement
and except the annual increment they shall not be
entitled for any other benefits like financial
benefits, promotion, senior grade or selection grade.
It further states that till their retirement they shall
be continued in the pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,5000. We
certainly find fault with this clause. When the
Government has adopted the Regulations as framed by the
Commission and if the Commission does not provide for
such a clause in its Regulations, the State Government
cannot deviate from the said Regulations if the
appointees upto 11th December, 1999 failed to obtain
the NET/ SET qualifications by December, 2003.
Undoubtedly they continued tobe unqualified to hold the
post of Lecturer and they can not be continued beyond
December, 2003. The concession granted by the State
Government in this clause is contrary to the
Regulations framed by the Commission. In case there
are institutions/ universities who do not want to be
covered under the U.G.C. Act, the position would be
different but the Government Resolution dated 18th
October, 2001 is in respect of all those aided, unaided
colleges/ institutions covered under the U.G.C. Act.
Though education is a subject in the concurrent list
i.e. List III under the Seventh Schedule (Serial
No.25), the State Governments power in that regard is
subject to the provisions of Entry 63, 64, 65 and 66
and List-I under the said Schedule. The Government
adopted the 2000 Regulations framed by the Commission
in toto vide Government Resolution dated 13th June,
2000 and retrospectively from 4th April, 2000. Under
these circumstances, the Governments decision of
granting concession, as set out in clause 2 (b) of the
impugned Government Resolution, cannot be sustained.
26. The impugned clause i.e. clause 2 (e) in the
Government Resolution dated 18th of October, 2001,
states that all the appointees to the post of Lecturer,
whose appointments are after 11th December, 1999 (who
have been classified in the three different groups, in
this judgment) would not be eligible for the
concessions granted in subclause (a) as well as (c) of
clause 2 and they are liable tobe removed from service
before the completion of their probationary period.
None of the petitioners, who are before us, have been
confirmed in service before the impugned Government
Resolution was issued. The probationers do not have a
vested right of being confirmed in service and more so
when they do not meet the requirements of prescribed
qualifications for appointment to the post which they
hold. Vide Government Resolution dated 11th December,
1999 the State Government had made known its policy in
no uncertain words to all the concerned, including the
universities and colleges/ institutions and stated that
the minimum qualifications required for the post of
Lecturer, Reader, Professor, Assistant Director of
Physical Education, Deputy Director of Physical
Education, Director of Physical Education, Assistant
Librarian, Deputy Librarian, Librarian and Registrars
would be those as prescribed by the Commission and
accepted by the State Government, from time to time.
This resolution had also referred to the scheme
formulated by the Commission vide letter dated 24th
December, 1998 wherein the minimum qualifications were
stipulated for the post of Lecturer under clause 4.4.0.
These qualifications were set out in the following
words:
“Good academic record with at least 55% of
marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7
point scale with latter grades O, A, B, C,
D, E & F at the Masters degree level in the
relevant subject from an Indian University
or equivalent degree from a foreign
university.
Besides fulfilling the above
qualifications, candidates should have
cleared the eligibility test (NET) for
lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR or
similar test accredited by the U.G.C.”
By the Resolution dated 11th December, 1999 the
scheme of 1998 framed by the U.G.C. was adopted and
followed in toto, including the qualifications for the
post of Lecturer. In view of this announcement of the
State policy the universities or colleges/ institutions
were not allowed to appoint candidates to the post of
Lecturers who did not possess the NET qualifications or
its equivalent from 12th December, 1999 unless these
appointments were covered under the first proviso to
clause 2 of the 1991 Regulations. Even when the
Government issued its Resolution dated 13th of June,
2000, adopting the 2000 Regulations framed by the
Commission, there was no concession granted, except the
concession in the first proviso to clause 2 therein
and, therefore, in respect of the appointments made
after 13th June, 2000 also the universities and
colleges/ institutions were under an obligation to
ensure that the candidates appointed to the post of
Lecturer did possess the qualifications of NET/ SET
unless the Commission had granted prior approval within
the ambit of the first proviso to clause 2 of the 2000
Regulations. Same is the case in respect of those
appointees after 13th of June, 2000 till 18th of
October, 2001. None of the appointees in these three
groups fulfill the eligibility conditions in respect of
the qualifications and, therefore, they obviously stand
in the category of unqualified candidates or ineligible
candidates.
Does it mean that every one of them is liable
tobe removed from service during the probationary
period or thereafter. This question cannot be answered
in general terms on the face of the relaxation granted
under the first proviso to clause 2 of the 1991
Regulations as well as 2000 Regulations. It would be,
therefore, necessary to examine each case under this
proviso and those who did not satisfy the requirements
therein must obviously vacate the posts. We deem it
appropriate to give these clarification in view of the
language of subclause (e) of clause 2 of the impugned
Government Resolution dated 18th October, 2001. It
would be necessary for the concerned university or the
college/ institution to ascertain whether the appointee
concerned is covered by the benefit under the first
proviso to clause 2 of the 1991 Regulations or 2000
Regulations before taking the final decision of
retention or removal as the case may be. The State
Governments decision impugned before us, cannot be
read in isolation and it must be read in conjunction
with the 1991 as well as 2000 Regulations. A
particular university or college/ institution may
justifiably put up a case before the Commission
regarding non-availability of adequate facilities for
NET/ SET examination and / or inadequate number of
qualified candidates in a particular subject and more
particularly against the posts reserved. These
parameters/ prevailing conditions could be examined by
the Commission which is the final authority and the
Commission has retained the discretion for applying its
mind to all these ground realities and take appropriate
decision of granting concession in favour of such
subjects. This discretion of the UGC cannot be taken
away by the impugned Resolution which has tobe read as
an announcement of the Government policy tobe
implemented on the lines of the Regulations framed by
the Commission and not in isolation.
27. Shri Shah, the learned counsel for the
Petitioners, placed before us a mercy petition, by
relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of “H. C. Puttaswamy and others V/s The Honble
Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and
others” and urged before us to hold
that as a matter of one time concession all those
unqualified Lecturers, who are appointed prior to 13th
of June, 2000 or 18th of October, 2001, should be held
tobe eligible for the concessions which have been
granted in favour of the candidates who have been
appointed on or before 11th December, 1999. We are
afraid, this cannot be done by us while exercising our
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and more
so on the face of the Regulations framed by the
Commission which is a statutory body created under the
U.G.C. Act. The Regulations framed by the Commission
have also provided some room for relaxation and the
concerned universities/ colleges/ institutions can
approach the Commission for exercise of this power of
relaxation in a given subject and for a specific
period. It is not for this Court to exercise such
powers. Shri Dhobale also argued on the special
provisions set out by the Constitution under Article
371(2)(c) of the Constitution. He urged before us
that concessions are required tobe continued in favour
of the candidates coming from backward regions as well
as backward classes. The language of Article 371 does
not contemplate concessions or relaxations tobe granted
for holding an academic post in technical education or
higher education. The Commission is an apex body who
has been bestowed with the powers to frame the
requirement of qualifications and other eligibility
conditions and has accordingly framed the Regulations
under which no relaxation is provided from the
requirement of qualifications in respect of the
candidates coming from either the backward regions or
from the backward classes except a relaxation of 5%
(from 55 to 50%) of the marks at the Masters level for
the SC/ ST category. The Commission has, thus,
considered the subject matter and granted some
relaxation. The submissions for further concessions
made by the learned counsel do not impress us.
28. We have also noted that the title of the 1991
Regulations framed by the Commission is different from
the title of the 2000 Regulations. The earlier
Regulations were titled as “the University Grants
Commission (Qualifications required of a person tobe
appointed to the teaching staff of the University and
institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991,
whereas the later Regulations were titled as “the
University Grants Commission (minimum qualifications
required for the appointment and Career Advancement of
teachers in Universities and institutions affiliated to
it) Regulations, 2000”. The emphasis, while framing
the later Regulations, was for prescribing minimum
qualifications required for appointment and for the
career advancement of teachers in the universities and
institutions affiliated to it. There was no emphasis
in this regard in the 1991 Regulations. This
deliberate change in the title of the Regulations also
speaks about the intentions of the Commission to lay
down a minimum qualifications for appointment and
insisted that the teachers with these minimum
qualifications are only appointed, subject, however, to
the provision of relaxation in specific cases.
In the impugned Resolution dated 18th of
October, 2001 the State Government has, in clause 3,
called upon the Universities and affiliated colleges to
implement the 2000 Regulations framed by the Commission
and not to appoint lecturers who do not meet the
qualifications set out in these Regulations. If
appointments are made of ineligible candidates the
State Government will not approve such appointments and
grants will not be released in respect of them. The
State Government is, therefore, mindful of the legal
position that the affiliated colleges and the
universities are bound by the Regulations framed by the
Commission so long as they desire to be governed by the
provisions of the U.G.C. Act and receive grants from
the State Government.
29. It is well established by a catena of judicial
enunciations that the academic standards as prescribed
by the respective nodal agencies created by an Act of
Parliament/ Legislature are tobe followed and judicial
interference in such areas is uncalled for. The
Commission is a body created by the U.G.C. Act and in
exercise of its statutory powers has prescribed the
minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of
lecturers as well as other faculty members. It is not
safe for this Court to sit in appeal over the decision
of the Commission in such matters. The academic
standards, prescribed by the Commission, including the
minimum qualifications prescribed for appointment of
teaching staff, cannot be a subject matter of judicial
review and this Court would not venture to grant any
relaxation in such qualifications, more so when the
Commission itself has retained powers of relaxations in
the given cases and for a specific period. The State
Government, by the impugned Resolution, has only
announced its determination to implement the 2000
Regulations meticulously and also ensured that all the
colleges/ institutions receiving grants, follow the
same, failing which the approvals to such appointments
would not be granted and they would forfeit the grants
available from the Government. It is for these reasons
we do not agree with the view taken by the learned
Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the case of
“Amiyakumar Ghosh” (supra).
30. In the result, the petition is rejected
summarily subject to our observations that clause 2 (b)
of the impugned Government Resolution dated 18th
October, 2001 is unsustainable and the same is quashed
and set aside. We also hold that the cases of
candidates appointed from 12th October, 1999 till 18th
October, 2001 are required tobe examined so as to
ascertain the applicability of the first proviso to
clause 2 of the 1991 Regulations as well as 2000
Regulations before their services are sought to be
terminated by the respective universities and/ or
colleges/ institutions.