Hrishikesh Roy, J.:— Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The learned standing counsel for the Department of Higher Education Ms. R. Choudhury represents the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The University Grant Commission (‘UGC’) is represented by the learned counsel Mr. A. Chamua. The learned CGC, Mr. K.K Parasar appears for the respondent No. 4.

2. The prescription of NET/SLET qualification, for appointment to the post of Lecturer/Asstt. Professor in UGC category institutions, under the UGC (Minimum Qualifications required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2009 (‘the 2009 Regulations’), is challenged in this case. The petitioners who have enrolled themselves for M.Phil curriculum, seek exemption from the NET/SLET requirement, on account of the exemption granted to this category, under the UGC (Minimum Qualifications required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2006 (‘the 2006 Regulations’).

3.1 The concerned stipulation of the 2006 Regulations being relevant for the present order, are extracted:

“NET shall remain compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for those with Post Graduate Degree. However, the candidates having Ph.D Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG level and UG level teaching. The candidates having M.Phil Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching only.”

3.2 Similarly, the relevant provision of the 2009 Regulations reads as:

“NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions:

Provided, however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded Ph.D Degree in compliance of the University Grant 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 for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.”

4. The petitioners are serving in venture colleges in Assam with the expectation that their services would be taken over by the Government, under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (‘the Provincialisation Act, 2011’)-They took admission for pursuing M.Phil degree in distance mode, from the Vinayak Mission University in the year 2008, prior to the 2009 Regulations. Therefore, they contend that they be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET qualification, for appointment to the post of Lecturer/Asstt. Professor, for under graduate level teaching, because they are admitted for the M.Phil curriculum.

5.1 The learned counsel Mr. S. Borthakur contends that since M.Phil qualified candidates were exempted from the NET/SLET qualification to teach under graduate Level students w.e.f 14.6.2006, under the 2006 Regulations, the withdrawal of exemption from this group, under the 2009 Regulations, brought into force on 11.7.2009, should not be retrospectively enforced against the petitioners, who are already admitted for the M.Phil curriculum under the Vinayak Mission University.

5.2 Having been appointed in venture institutions, the petitioners have legitimate expectation for provincialisation of their service, under the Provincialisation Act, 2011 and, therefore, they submit that they be exempted from the NET/SLET qualification, which should be applied prospectively, for appointment of Lecturers/Asstt. Professors, under the Regulations, 2009.

5.3 As the petitioners have admitted themselves in the M.Phil curriculum prior to the Regulations, 2009 coming into force, they contend that their eligibility for appointment to teach under graduate level students in the UGC category institutions, should be considered under the exemption norms, permitted for the M.Phil degree holders, under the 2006 Regulations.

5.4 Referring to the resolution adopted by the UGC in their 471st Meeting, held on 12.8.2010, to consider exemption to the M.Phil degree holders, Mr. Borthakur submits that direction be issued to the UGC to consider the hardship in individual cases, so that the concerned candidate be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET qualification, on the strength of their M.Phil qualification.

6.1 On the other hand, Mr. A. Chamuah as the learned counsel representing the respondent No. 3 submits that the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (‘the UGC Act’) provides for establishment of University Grants Commission and this body is empowered to make regulation(s), under section 26 of the UGC Act, to ensure that the desired standards of instruction is maintained in the UGC affiliated institutions.

6.2 The counsel for the UGC submits that NET/SLET examination is prescribed as the qualifying requirement by the UGC for the post of Lecturer/Asstt. Professor and if the norms are to be relaxed by granting exemption, the same will have an impact on the quality of higher Education, in the UGC affiliated institutions.

6.3 Mr. Chamuah points out that the petitioners have taken admission for M.Phil degrees in distance mode and such degrees are not at par or recognized for the exemption permitted for the regular M.Phil degree holders, under the 2006 Regulations and accordingly it is argued that the petitioners have no right to be considered for appointment, without possession of the NET/SLET qualification.

6.4 By virtue of the service rendered by the petitioners in venture institutions, where entry in service is not regulated by the UGC norms, the respondent submits that they cannot have any legitimate expectation of provincialisation of their service, under the Provincialisation Act, 2011, as that Act was declared to be ultra vires by this court on 23.9.2016, in the WP(C) No. 3190/2012 (Chandan Kr. Neog v. State of Assam).

6.5 The respondent's counsel Mr. Chamuah reads the letter dated 3.11.2010 of the Ministry of Human Resource Development to project that the Government of India has not accepted the UGC's resolution adopted in their 471st Meeting held on 12.8.2010 and, thus, he argues that NET/SLET is mandatory for a teaching position and there can be no exemption for those with only M.Phil qualification, for appointment to UGC institutions.

7.1 Representing the Department of Higher Education, the learned standing counsel Ms. R. Choudhury submits that the power to prescribe qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer/Asstt. Professor, vests on the UGC and the State Government does not have any say in the matter. The standing counsel further submits that since the Provincialisation Act, 2011 was declared to be ultra vires by the court, nobody currently serving in venture institutions, can have any legitimate expectation, of being provincialised under the 2011 Act.

8. The UGC Regulation prescribing the qualification norms for faculty appointment, must not only conform to the UGC Act but the Central Government is also empowered to issue direction under section 20, on policy matters, affecting national interest. Therefore, this aspect must be borne in mind by the UGC, in the discharge of its function under the Act.

9. The wide disparity of standard in granting M.Phil/Ph.D degrees, by various Universities/Institutions in the country, was considered by the Supreme Court in P. Suseela v. University Grants Commission, (2015) 8 SCC 129 where it was declared that, all teachers appointed in Universities and Colleges governed by the UGC Act, should have certain minimum standard of excellence, before they are appointed. The determination of standard lay at the very core of the UGC Act and in that context the Apex Court declared that the legitimate expectation of appointment of individuals, must always yield to the larger public interest, of having highly qualified faculty to teach in UGC institutions.

10. In the present case, the exemption from NET/SLET requirement to undertake under graduate level teaching, was granted for those with M.Phil degree under the 2006 Regulations, but the exemption was omitted under the 2009 Regulations and, hence, NET/SLET was prescribed to be essential eligibility criteria, for recruitment of teachers, in UGC affiliated institutions. Therefore, those with M.Phil qualification, who were being considered for appointment under the 2006 Regulations, could have been considered for appointment without NET/SLET qualification, only for a limited time frame (14.6.2006-11.7.2009). However, post-11.7.2009, none are entitled to be so appointed, as they do not fulfill the minimum qualification prescribed by the UGC.

11. The petitioners may have expectation (legitimate or otherwise) to be considered for appointment as Lecturer/Asstt. Professor but they must satisfy the qualification norms applicable on the date of consideration. When the exemption period has ended, even the M.Phil degree holders are disentitled to claim exemption from the essential qualification of NET/SLET, on the strength of the 2006 Regulations since norms were re-laid w.e.f 11.7.2009, through the 2009 Regulations.

12. It cannot also be overlooked that the petitioners here had not secured their M.Phil degree during the exemption period (14.6.2006-11.7.2009) but had simply enrolled themselves for M.Phil curriculum in the distance mode, from the Vinayak Mission University. Such distance mode qualification (assuming it was obtained during the relevant period) would still not secure to the petitioners, exemption from NET/SLET qualification, under the 2006 Regulations.

13. If the exemption claimed by the petitioners from NET/SLET requirement is granted, the standard of excellence, prescribed for appointment of faculty to UGC category institutions will be adversely impacted and on account of the ratio laid down in the case of P. Suseela (supra), such exemption cannot be granted even for those, with a regular M.Phil degree.

14. What is of significance is that the petitioners are not in the fray for appointment during subsistence of the 2006 Regulations (14.6.2006—11.7.2009) and, therefore, when the NET/SLET qualification, is mandated by the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (‘the, 2010 Regulations’), the court cannot order for exemption of the petitioners from the essential requirement for appointment, as teachers of UGC category institutions.

15. Under clause 4.4.0 of the 2010 Regulations, besides possession of good academic record, a candidate must have cleared the NET conducted by the UGC or similar tests like SLET/SET accredited by the UGC and since the petitioners do not satisfy the prescribed qualification, they according to us, do not have any enforceable right to claim any direction for exemption.

16. The court must not pass any order which will undermine the required standard of excellence in appointment of faculty members for higher Education and, therefore, on the strength of pursuing M.Phil curriculum in distance mode, the quality of Education cannot be allowed to suffer, through recruitment of aspirants, without possession of the required degree which reflect on their suitability and credentials for the job.

17. It is also necessary to take note of the decision of Central Government, communicated through the letter of 3.11.2010, in pursuant to the resolution of the UGC for exemption from NET requirement, to reject the resolution for exemption and specifying that NET/SLET was compulsory for teaching positions, as a part of the national policy for maintenance of standards in higher Education. Therefore, any dilution of standard by a court order would surely undermine the nation's interest and also the power given to the Central Government, under section 20 of the UGC Act, 1956. Therefore, we cannot but hold that the petitioners are not entitled to any exemption from the requirement of NET/SLET qualification.

18. The petitioners are serving in venture category institutions, where they must have been appointed under relaxed criterion and, therefore, by virtue of such appointment, they cannot have a legitimate expectation to be provincialised, as faculty members for under graduate level teaching. Such indulgence in our mind would be undeserved, as it will compromise the uniform standard of excellence, intended through NET/SLET qualification, on account of the wide variation of standards in different institutions, for pursuing the M.Phil degrees.

19. For the aforesaid discussion, this case is found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed, by leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.