Supreme Court Upholds Applicability of UGC Regulation 10(f)(iii) for Shortlisting Assistant Professors: Reiterates Limits on Judicial 'Reading Down'

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated December 18, 2024, in the case of Allahabad University v. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) (2024 INSC 1003), delivered a significant ruling on the applicability of certain University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations concerning the shortlisting of candidates for the post of Assistant Professor. The Court addressed the validity and scope of Regulation 10(f)(iii) 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, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the "2018 Regulations").

This judgment arises from a challenge posed by Ms. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey), an aspiring candidate for the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit at Allahabad University and its affiliated colleges. Her candidature was not shortlisted for interview as her past teaching experience was not counted under Regulation 10(f)(iii). The High Court of Allahabad previously read down this regulation, effectively excluding its application for the post of Assistant Professor. The Supreme Court, however, reversed this decision, upholding the applicability of Regulation 10(f)(iii) and providing clarity on the principles of statutory interpretation and the limits of judicial intervention in administrative processes.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Allahabad University and Allahabad Degree College, setting aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court that had read down Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the 2018 Regulations. The Court held that:

Regulation 10(f)(iii) is applicable to the post of Assistant Professor, as explicitly stated in the regulation.
The courts should not read down or alter clear statutory provisions unless they are unconstitutional or ultra vires.
Universities and colleges are entitled to adopt reasonable and rational criteria, including higher qualifications or experience, for shortlisting candidates for interview.
The method of shortlisting candidates based on the academic score calculated under Table 3A of the 2018 Regulations, which includes counting past teaching experience as per Regulation 10, is valid and permissible.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court referred to several significant precedents to support its reasoning:

M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar (1994): This case established that selection bodies can adopt rational methods for shortlisting candidates when a large number of applicants apply for limited posts.
Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (1992): The Court held that it is not within the judicial function to rewrite or recast legislation; courts cannot add or subtract words from statutes.
State of Rajasthan v. Sanyam Lodha (2011): It was held that without a challenge to the validity of a rule, the court should not read it down, especially when there is no occasion to do so.
Subramanian Swamy v. Raju (2014): The Court stated that reading down a statute is permissible only when the statute is unconstitutional, and such reading down is necessary to save it.

Legal Reasoning

1. Applicability of Regulation 10(f)(iii): The Court analyzed Regulation 10 of the 2018 Regulations, which explicitly mentions that previous service as an Assistant Professor, whether regular, ad hoc, temporary, or contractual, should be counted for direct recruitment and promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), provided certain conditions are met. One such condition, under Clause (f)(iii), is that the incumbent was drawing total gross emoluments not less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor.

The High Court had reasoned that Regulation 10 applies only to the posts of Associate Professor and Professor and not to Assistant Professor, considering the entry-level nature of the latter position. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, emphasizing that Regulation 10 expressly includes Assistant Professors and that reading down the regulation to exclude them amounts to judicial overreach.

2. Limits of Judicial Intervention: The Court underscored the principle that courts should not engage in judicial legislation by adding to or subtracting from the statutory language. The judiciary's role is to interpret the law as it is, not to modify it based on perceived anomalies or to achieve a particular outcome. The Court cited previous judgments affirming that unless a provision is unconstitutional or ultra vires, courts must refrain from altering its plain meaning.

3. Rationality of Shortlisting Criteria: The Supreme Court acknowledged that universities and selection bodies might receive a large number of applications for a limited number of positions. In such cases, adopting rational and reasonable criteria for shortlisting candidates, including considering past teaching experience that meets specific standards, is permissible. This approach ensures that only the most qualified candidates are considered, promoting efficiency and maintaining academic standards.

Impact

The judgment has significant implications for universities and colleges across India:

Clarification of Regulation 10(f)(iii): The Supreme Court's decision confirms that Regulation 10(f)(iii) applies to the post of Assistant Professor. This means that past teaching experience will be counted towards shortlisting only if it satisfies the conditions laid out in Regulation 10, including the requirement regarding emoluments.
Validation of Shortlisting Practices: Universities can continue to use the criteria established under the 2018 Regulations for shortlisting candidates, ensuring a fair and merit-based selection process.
Limitations on Judicial 'Reading Down': The judgment reaffirms that courts should not read down statutory provisions in the absence of unconstitutionality. This reinforces the separation of powers and respects administrative and legislative domains.
Guidance for Future Disputes: The principles laid down will guide future cases where candidates challenge eligibility criteria or shortlisting methods, emphasizing adherence to statutory regulations and established legal principles.

Complex Concepts Simplified

What is 'Reading Down'?

'Reading down' is a judicial tool used to interpret statutes in a way that preserves their constitutionality. If a provision is likely to be declared unconstitutional due to its broad application, courts may interpret or 'read down' the provision narrowly to align it with constitutional mandates. However, this is only permissible when the provision is ambiguous or when such interpretation is necessary to save it from invalidity.

Regulation 10(f)(iii) Explained

Regulation 10(f)(iii) stipulates that for past ad hoc, temporary, or contractual teaching experience to be considered in direct recruitment or promotion, the incumbent must have been drawing total gross emoluments not less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. This ensures that only equivalent and relevant teaching experiences are counted, maintaining the quality and standards of higher education faculty.

Why Emoluments Matter

The requirement regarding emoluments aims to ensure that the teaching experience considered is substantial and aligns with the responsibilities of a regular Assistant Professor. It serves as a proxy for the nature and seriousness of the teaching role performed. Those drawing lesser emoluments may have had roles of a different nature or lower responsibility, which may not be equivalent to the position of an Assistant Professor.

The Role of UGC Regulations

The UGC Regulations are designed to maintain standards in higher education across India. They set uniform criteria for qualifications, experience, and recruitment processes for academic positions in universities and colleges. Institutions are required to adhere to these regulations to ensure fairness, transparency, and quality in faculty appointments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Allahabad University v. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) reaffirms the importance of adhering to statutory regulations in administrative processes and the limitations on judicial intervention. By upholding the applicability of Regulation 10(f)(iii) to the post of Assistant Professor, the Court emphasized that clear and unambiguous provisions should be applied as written unless they are unconstitutional. The judgment supports the autonomy of educational institutions to set reasonable criteria for faculty appointments, ensuring that quality and standards in higher education are maintained.

This ruling provides clarity for both institutions and aspiring candidates, outlining that only teaching experiences meeting the stipulated conditions will be considered during the shortlisting process. It underscores the principle that judicial bodies should interpret laws to reflect the legislature's intent, without altering statutory language unless necessary. Overall, the judgment contributes to a more structured and principled approach in faculty recruitment within Indian higher education.