AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 20(1) of the UGC Act, 1956
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 20(1) of the UGC Act, 1956
Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — Banaras Hindu University Writ Petition

Factual and Procedural Background

This writ petition was heard by a Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J. and Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. The petitioners are 12 individuals who, after obtaining a postgraduate degree, had been registered for Ph.D. courses at Banaras Hindu University (BHU) under various subjects prior to 31 December 2009. It is admitted in the record that the petitioners had not been awarded Ph.D. degrees prior to 13 December 2009 and had not cleared the NET/SET examinations.

The petitioners sought quashing of a circular dated 6 November 2013 issued by the Dean, Faculty of Science, BHU (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). The circular clarified that only candidates who have a Ph.D. degree in accordance with the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 shall be exempt from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET, and directed heads/coordinators to observe those guidelines while shortlisting for faculty positions.

An amendment application was filed seeking quashing of the entire selection process pursuant to Advertisement No. 5/12-13 (uploaded on 14 February 2013). The University placed on record the advertisement, which adopted the UGC Regulations (on Minimum Qualifications) 2010 — notified in the Official Gazette on 18 September 2010 — as the basis for minimum qualifications for advertised Assistant Professor posts. The University also asserted that short-listing by FAC-I and FAC-II was underway and that the petitioners had not yet been finally accepted or rejected in short-listing.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the BHU circular dated 6 November 2013 (clarifying that only candidates awarded Ph.D. in accordance with UGC Ph.D. Regulations, 2009 are exempt from NET/SLET/SET) is liable to be quashed.
  2. Whether resolutions of the University Grants Commission (UGC) meetings (referred to as the 471st/472nd meeting resolutions) that arguably extend exemption to candidates registered for Ph.D. prior to 31 December 2009 but awarded later, are binding on universities or whether the Gazette-notified UGC Regulations, 2010 govern eligibility.
  3. Whether candidates who had only registered for Ph.D. prior to 31 December 2009 (but were not awarded the Ph.D. by that date and who have not cleared NET/SLET/SET) are entitled to exemption from the NET/SLET/SET requirement for appointment as Assistant Professor.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments (as presented in the opinion)

  • Counsel for the petitioners (Sri K.K. Rai/K.K. Roy as recorded) relied on UGC meeting records (referred to variously to the 470th/471st/472nd meetings and their resolutions) and argued that the UGC had resolved that candidates who had registered for Ph.D. on or before 31 December 2009 (and subsequently awarded Ph.D.) should be exempt from NET/SLET/SET. On this basis, the petitioners submitted that they should be treated as qualified and exempted from NET/SLET/SET.
  • The petitioners also placed reliance on Division Bench authority (Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gupta and Dr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav — decisions of this Court) which, as relied upon by petitioners' counsel, were said to hold that the UGC resolution in question is binding on universities and permits the claimed exemption in circumstances analogous to the petitioners'.

Respondent (Banaras Hindu University) Arguments

  • BHU, in its counter affidavit, relied on the Gazette Notification of 18 September 2010 which notifies the UGC Regulations, 2010 (described as statutorily published under Section 26 of the UGC Act) and submitted that the statutory Regulations so published are binding.
  • The University argued that the meeting resolutions of the UGC relied upon by petitioners' counsel are parts of deliberative processes and do not have the force of Gazette-notified Regulations. The University additionally relied on a clarification from UGC (letter dated 20 November 2012) that those resolutions were part of deliberations and not final or binding, and that the Central Government did not concur with the resolutions (D.O. Letter dated 3 November 2010).
  • The University also pointed out that the petitioners' applications were under scrutiny and that petitioners had not yet been accepted or rejected in short-listing, arguing there was no ground or cause of action at that stage for the writ petition.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gupta v. University of Allahabad (Writ Petition No. 454777 of 2011) dated 10.1.2012 Submitted by petitioners' counsel as authority that UGC resolution (specifically meeting 472 agenda item No. 2.08) is binding on universities and that Regulations of 2010 should be read with that resolution to permit exemption. The opinion records the petitioners' reliance on this judgment but treats the Gazette-notified Regulations and the statutory scheme as determinative; the Court did not accept that the meeting resolution overrode the Gazette-notified Regulations.
Dr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. University of Allahabad (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45477 of 2011) decided 6 April 2012 Relied upon (paragraphs cited) for the proposition that the UGC meeting resolutions could be binding on the University of Allahabad where the factual matrix included petitioners who had been awarded Ph.D. degrees prior to 2009. The Bench analyzed this authority, noted its factual basis (award of Ph.D. in 2009 and 2003 in that case) and extracted from its conclusions that Ph.D. holders awarded prior to 31.12.2009 could not claim a legitimate expectation to exemption unless UGC provided exemption; the present Court distinguished the factual matrix and reaffirmed reliance on Gazette-notified Regulations.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded by reference to the statutory framework and the text of the Gazette-notified UGC Regulations, 2010. The key analytical steps recorded in the opinion are:

  1. Statutory basis: The Court noted that under Section 26 of the UGC Act the Commission has the power to make Regulations specifying qualifications for appointment to university teaching staff and that such Regulations must be notified in the Official Gazette. Section 26(3) was also noted regarding the Commission's competence to frame Regulations with retrospective effect (subject to the statutory limits expressed in the Act). The composition and authentication provisions (Sections 7 and 11 respectively) were referenced in explaining how Commission instruments are validated.
  2. Primacy of Gazette-notified Regulations: The Court observed that the UGC Regulations, 2010 (Notification dated 10.6.2010; Gazette publication on 18.9.2010) were duly published in the Official Gazette and expressly superseded earlier Regulations relating to minimum qualifications. Consequently, appointments to vacancies advertised after the enforcement of Regulations-2010 must conform to those Regulations.
  3. Nature of relief/exemption within Regulations-2010: The Court examined Clause 4.4.1 of Regulations-2010 which provides a specific exemption from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET "Notwithstanding anything contained" in certain sub-clauses — but only for candidates "who are, or have been awarded a Ph.D Degree in accordance with the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009." The Court read this clause to mean that the exemption is available only to persons who have actually been awarded a Ph.D. degree in accordance with the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations (and as the 2009 Regulations provided, only persons awarded Ph.D. up to 31 December 2009 were entitled to the relaxation).
  4. Limitations of UGC meeting resolutions: The Court held that any resolution adopted in UGC meetings (471st/472nd etc.) suggesting broader relaxation would not have the effect of amending the Gazette-notified Regulation-2010. The Court relied on a UGC letter dated 20 November 2012, which expressly stated that the cited meeting resolutions were part of deliberations and not a final decision, and recorded that the Central Government did not concur with those resolutions (D.O. letter dated 3 November 2010).
  5. Application to facts and procedural posture: Given that the petitioners had not been awarded Ph.D. degrees prior to the relevant cut-off and had not cleared NET/SLET/SET, the Court found they did not satisfy the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Gazette-notified Regulations, 2010. The University’s contention that short-listing was still in process and that petitioners had neither been accepted nor rejected was also recorded by the Court as part of the factual posture.
  6. Conclusion on relief sought: For these reasons the Court found no good ground to quash the Dean's circular dated 6 November 2013 which followed the Regulations-2010. The Court therefore dismissed the writ petition subject to a limited direction (see Holding).

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition seeking quashing of the circular dated 6 November 2013 is dismissed. The Court concluded that the Gazette-notified UGC Regulations, 2010 govern the minimum qualifications and that meeting resolutions of the UGC do not have the effect of amending those Regulations.

Implications / Consequences:

  • Direct effect: The BHU circular of 6 November 2013 stands; candidates who have not been awarded Ph.D. degrees in accordance with the UGC Ph.D. Regulations, 2009 prior to the cut-off are not entitled to exemption from NET/SLET/SET under Clause 4.4.1 of Regulations-2010.
  • Limited remedial direction: The Court directed that if any of the petitioners had, in fact, been awarded a Ph.D. degree prior to 31 December 2009 and are thus covered by Clause 4.4.1 (sub-clause 3) of Regulation-2010, then that petitioner's claim shall be considered by the University.
  • Precedential note: The opinion stresses the primacy of Gazette-notified Regulations under the UGC Act; the Court did not purport to lay new law beyond application of the existing statutory scheme and the Regulations as published. The decision does not record the setting of a new precedent beyond applying the statutory Regulations to the facts of this petition.

End of summary based exclusively on the provided opinion text.

    Dr. Vinay Singh And 11 Ors. Petitioners v. Union Of India & 7 Ors. S

    Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.

    Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

    1. Petitioners, who are 12 in number after having obtained a degree of Post Graduation have been registered for Ph.D Course in Banaras Hindu University under various subjects prior to 31 December, 2009. It is admitted that the petitioners had not been awarded a degree of Ph.D prior to 13.12.2009 It is also admitted that the petitioners have not cleared the NET/SET Examination

    2. The petitioners seek quashing of the circular dated 6 November, 2013 issued by the Deen, Faculty of Science, BHU (Annexure-4 to the present writ petition), where under it has been clarified that only those candidates, who have a degree of Ph. D. in accordance with the University Grant Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2009 shall be exempt from the requirement of minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET. All the Heads Coordinators have been directed to observe the above guidelines while shortlisting the candidates for Faculty positions.

    3. Today an amendment application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire selection process in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 5/12-13 as uploaded on the website of the University on 14.2.2013

    4. A copy of the advertisement has been enclosed along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Banaras Hindu University, wherein the posts of Assistant Professors in various departments in Banaras Hindu University have been advertised. Under the heading of minimum qualifications it has been mentioned that the candidate must satisfy the minimum qualifications as per the UGC Regulations (on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standard in Higher Education) 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘UGC Regulations, 2010). These regulations have been notified in the official Gazette of India on 18 September 2010. A copy of the Gazette Notification has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the BHU.

    5. The minimum qualifications under the UGC Regulations, 2010, for the posts subject matter of consideration in this writ petition, has been provided as follows:-

    19. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph 56 and 57 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the short-listing of candidates by the FAC-I and FAC-II Committees are underway and the petitioner, being an applicant for various positions have neither been accepted nor rejected in the short-listing process and, therefore, they do not have any grounds for moving this writ petition.

    20. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 58 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the circular dated 6.11.2013 issued by the Dean, Faculty of Science, BHU and respondent no. 5 is conforming to the norms and regulations prescribed by UGC under University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualification for appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of the Standards in Higher Education) Regulations-2010 and a clarification received by the UGC vide its letter No. F.9-3/2010 (PS)/Misc. dated 20.11.2012 The petitioners being applicant to the various disciplines of Assistant Professor in the University have submitted their application forms, which is in possession of the University and are undergoing the process of scrutiny and short-listing which is yet to be completed and as of now the candidates are neither accepted nor rejected by the University. Therefore, there is no grounds to file this writ petition at this stage and also no cause of action arise at this stage.

    6. From what has been stated above, it is apparently clear that the petitioners do not satisfy the minimum qualifications prescribed under UGC Regulations, 2010, inasmuch as they do not have Ph.D Degree in their favour since prior to cut of date, i.e, 31.12.2009 nor they have cleared eligibility test of NET/SLET/SET.

    7. Sri. K.K Rai, counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the UGC in its 470 meeting held on 7 June, 2010 after taking into consideration the recommendation of the Expert Committee constituted for the purpose, has resolved as follows:-

    “To consider applicability of the UGC Minimum Qualification for appointment of teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2010 and the UGC (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it-3 amendment) Regulations, 2009.

    The Commission examined the matter regarding applicability of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it-3 amendment) Regulations, 2009 and 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.

    After considering the agenda and above mentioned Regulations, the Commission resolved as under:

    (i) UGC (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in Universities and institutions affiliated to it-3 amendment) Regulations, 2009 has come into effect on 11 July, 2009.

    (ii) 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 has come into effect on 30 June, 2010.

    (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 10 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 31 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.”

    and its 472 meeting held on 12 August, 2012 it has been resolved as follows:

    “To confirm the minutes of the 471 meeting of the University Grants Commission held on 12 August, 2012.

    The Commission considered the letter dated 23/9/2010 received from Prof. K. Ramamurthy Naidu, Commission Member and agreed to the following changes.

    It was decided to replace the sentence “While confirming Item No. 1.02(iv) it was decided that letters received from Dr. Shivajirao Kadam and Prof. Ramamurthy Naidu be also sent to M/HRD” with “While confirming Item No. 1.02(iv) it was decided that letters received from Dr. Shivajirao Kadam and Dr. Vidya Yervadekar and the note from Prof. Ramamurthy Naidu be sent to M/HRD”.

    The following modification was suggested in the first paragraph at Page 10 relating to Item No. 2.08

    “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 10 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 31 December, 2009 and candidates who had registered themselves for Ph.D degree on or before 10th July, 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”.

    With the above modification the minutes were confirmed.”

    8. With reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gupta v. University of Allahabad (Writ Petition No. 454777 of 2011) dated 10.1.2012 it is submitted that resolution made in the meeting of the UGC, specifically that in 472 meeting agenda item No. 2.08 dated 27.9.2010 is binding on the Universities, including the University of Allahabad. He, therefore, submits that the Regulations of 2010 have to be read along with the resolutions agenda item no. 2.08 dated 12.8.2010 made in the 472 meeting of the UGC and persons like the petitioners, who had been registered for Ph. D prior to 31 December, are entitled to be treated as qualified and to be exempted from SET/SLET/NET Examinations.

    9. Sri. K.K Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. University of Allahabad, decided on 6 April, 2012, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45477 of 2011 specifically in paragraph nos. 55, 84, 100 and 102 and the conclusions recorded in para 105, that the resolution made in the meeting of the UGC No. 471 dated 12.8.2010 is binding upon the University, and therefore, the candidates like the petitioners who had been registered for Ph.D Degree prior to 3 Amendment of the Regulations of 2009 would be entitled to exemption from NET/SLET, immediately after they are awarded Ph.D Degree.

    10. In counter affidavit filed on behalf of Banaras Hindu University, the gazette Notification dated 18 September, 2010 where under the Regulations of 2010 have been notified has been enclosed. Reference has also been made to the advertisement which has been published for various post and essential qualification prescribed as well as to the classificatory letter which has been received from the University Grants Commission to the effect of the resolution made in the meeting of the University Grants Commission No. 471 and 472 held on 12.8.2010 and 27.9.2010 which have been heavily relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are only part of the process of deliberation. However, the statutory provisions which are published in the official gazette in accordance with Section 26 of the UGC are binding. The UGC has reiterated that exemption from NET/SLET/SET etc. is to be provided to such candidates who have a degree of Ph.D prior to 31 December, 2009 and not otherwise.

    11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record of the present writ petition.

    12. It is not in dispute that under Section 26 of the UGC Act, the Commission has the power to make Regulations specifying the qualification that should ordinarily be required to be possessed by any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University having regard to the branch of education in which he is to be appointed. These Regulations are statutorily required to be notified in the official gazette.

    13. We may also refer to the power conferred under Section 26(3) of the said Act upon the UGC to frame Regulations with retrospective affect which may not be latter than the date of commencement of the Act.

    14. The composition of the Commission have been provided under Section 7. The authentication of the orders and other instrument of the Commission is to be done under the signature of the authorized members under Section 11. The power to frame the Regulation in the matter of minimum qualification required for faculty positions is controlled by Section 26 which mandates that the Commission shall by way of notification in official gazette make regulations for the purposes of laying down the minimum qualifications amongst other.

    15. In the facts of the case, we find that the Regulation 2010 framed under Notification dated 10.6.2010 have been duly published in the official gazette on 18 September, 2010. This Notification provides that all earlier Regulations framed by the UGC in respect of minimum qualifications stand superseded. It is, therefore, clear that from the date of Regulation-2010 have come in force all appointments against vacancies which become available and are advertised after the enforcement of the Regulations-2010 have necessarily to be filled in accordance with the Regulations-2010. Any relaxation in the minimum qualification prescribed therein can only be by way of amendment in the Regulations and not otherwise. The Regulations-2010 do contemplate grant of relaxation in respect of the post of Assistant Professor under Clause 4.4.1 which reads as follows:-

    “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (I) and (ii) to this Clause 4.4.1, 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.”

    16. From the simple reading of the Regulation-2010 in the matter of grant of relaxation from NET/SLET/SET qualification has been provided to only such candidates who have been awarded Ph.D Degree in accordance with UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D Degree (Regulations, 2009). Under the Regulation of 2009 only such persons who had a degree of Ph.D Up to 31 December, 2009 have been provided such relaxation.

    17. We may add that any resolution made by the UGC suggesting further relaxation in favour of candidates like the petitioner in his 471 and 472 meeting will not have the affect of amending the Regulation 2010.

    18. The position in that regard has specifically been clarified by the UGC itself under letter dated 20 November, 2012 wherein it has been recorded as follows:-

    “It has come to the notice of UGC that in the recent past, some of the universities and institutions have advertised the post of Lecturers/Assistant Professor without any stipulation regarding mandatory requirement of NET/SLET/SET as required by UGC Regulations, notified on 11.7.2009 and 18.9.2010 It has also been noticed by UGC that universities institutions are relying on the Resolutions of the Commission in the 471st and 472nd meeting of the UGC held on 12.8.2010 and 27.9.2010 It is hereby clarified and informed for the benefit of all concerned Universities Institutions and other stake holders including prospective candidates that the above resolutions are merely the part of the process of deliberation by the Commission on the issue of minimum qualification for appointment and not a final decision required to be implemented. In fact, the Central Government vide its D.O Letter No. F.8-7/2010-U-1(A) dated 3rd November, 2010 did not concur with the said resolutions dated 12.8.2010 and 27.9.2010 of the Commission”

    19. In view of the conclusion drawn by us herein above, we find no good reason to quash the Circular letter dated 6.11.2013

    20. So far as the judgment in the case of Dr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. University of Allahabad is concerned in paragraph no. 1 of the judgement itself it has been recorded that the petitioner in that case had been awarded the Ph.D Degree in the year 2009 and 2003 respectively and it is in this factual background that the High Court has examined the applicability of the relaxation from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET etc. and held that the resolutions of the University Grants Commission made in 41 Amendment meeting would be binding on the Allahabad University in as much as the Central Government under Section 20(1) of the UGC Act, 1956 did not possess any power to approve or disapprove the recommendation of UGC.

    21. We may also highlighted the conclusion in sub-para 4 of para 105 of the Division Bench in the case of Dr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav which reads as follows:-

    “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.”

    22. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with the direction that if any of petitioners had been awarded Ph.D Degree prior to 31 December, 2009 and are therefore covered under Clause 4.4.1 sub-clause 3 of the Regulation-2010, then his claim shall be considered by the University.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Dr. Vinay Singh And 11 Ors. Petitioners v. Union Of India & 7 Ors. S
    (Jan 6, 2014)