THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus MANOJ SHARMA & ORS. on 25 January 2018

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

v.

MANOJ SHARMA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 871 of 2018)

JANUARY 25, 2018

[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]

University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards andProcedure for the award of M.Phil./Ph.D Degree) Regulations,2009 – Regulations 3, 5 – Operation of – 2009 Regulationsprohibiting any university, institution or deemed university fromconducting M.Phil./Ph.D. through distance education mode,published in Gazette of India on 11.7.2009 – Writ petitioners-respondents herein had passed M.Phil. from different universitiesunder distance education before 11.07.2009 – Applications invitedby appellant-State for the post of Guest Lecturer in different subjects– Applications of writ petitioners were not accepted on the groundthat they were not qualified as they had obtained M.Phil. Degreethrough distance education programme – Single Judge of HighCourt disposed of the writ petitions holding that those candidateswho cleared M.Phil. before the 2009 Regulations through distanceeducation mode, are eligible and their result be declared –Writ appealdismissed by Division Bench – Held: Regulation 3, of 2009Regulations provides for enforcement of the Regulation from thedate of their publication in the Gazette of India – Thus, it is clearthat regulations are prospective in nature and may not affect thequalifications granted by an university or institution prior to theenforcement of the regulation – Single Judge rightly directed theState to consider the case of writ petitioners on the basis of M.Phil.degree – However, such direction of Single Judge be consideredtaking into consideration the fact that in view of UGC(MinimumQualifications for Appointment) Regulations, 2009, also publishedin the Gazette on 11.7.2009, National Eligibility Test (NET) is nowminimum qualification for appointment of Lecturer and exemptiongranted to M.Phil. degree holders have been withdrawn andexemption is allowed only to those Ph.D. degree holders who haveobtained the Ph.D. degree in accordance with 2009 Regulations –UGC(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career

A

B

CDEFG

H

AAdvancement of Teachers in Affiliated Universities and Institutions)(3[rd] amendment) Regulations, 2009 .

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Regulation 3 under University GrantsCommission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for the awardBof M.Phil./Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009 [Regulations 2009of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure)], clearly providedfor enforcement for the regulation from the date of their publicationin the Gazette of India. Thus, it is clear that regulations areprospective in nature and may not affect the qualifications grantedby an university or institution prior to the enforcement of theCregulation. There is no error in the judgment of the High Court.Single Judge had thus rightly directed the respondent to considerthe case of the writ petitioners on the basis of M.Phil. degreeand declare the result alongwith other candidates. [Paras 12, 13][784-F-H; 785-A]

D1.2 There is another issue which needs to be noticed atthis juncture. On the same day when regulations pertaining toMinimum Standards and Procedure for the award of M.Phil./Ph.DDegree were published, another regulations were published inthe Gazette on the same day i.e. on 11.7.2009, namely, UGC(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and CareerEAdvancement of Teachers in Affiliated Universities andInstitutions) (3[rd] amendment) Regulations, 2009. [Para 14][785-B]

1.3 University Grants Commission had issued regulationsrelating to minimum qualification for the post of lecturer in theyear 2000 which regulations were amended in 2002 and 2006.FAccording to Regulations 2000, Regulation 1.3.3 provides forqualification for Lecturer inter alia stating that candidates shouldhave cleared the eligibility test (NET) for lecturers conducted bythe UGC. It also stated that NET shall remain compulsoryrequirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidatesGhaving Ph.D. degree. However, inter alia it was also stated thatthe candidates who have completed M. Phil. Degree are exemptedfrom appearing in the NET examination. [Para 15] [785-C-D, E-H]

1.4 The said regulations were amended and amendmentsdated 11.07.2009 were relevant whereas the note as containedH

in Regulation 1.3.3 has been substituted. The amendment as madein the minimum qualification, now provides that the exemptionfrom NET shall be given to the Ph.D. degree holders, only whenPh.D. degree has been awarded to them in compliance with theRegulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure).The above provision thus, made it mandatory that for lecturersNET qualification is necessary and exemption shall be grantedto those Ph.D. degree holders who have obtained Ph.D. degreein accordance with the Regulations 2009 of UGC (MinimumStandards and Procedure). The purpose and object of the aboveamendments in both Regulations 2009 of UGC (MinimumStandards and Procedure) as well as Regulations 2009 of UGC(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment) is not far to seek.[Paras 16, 17] [785-G; 786-C-E]

1.5 Thus, NET qualification is now minimum qualificationfor appointment of Lecturer and exemption granted to M.Phil.degree holders have been withdrawn and exemption is allowedonly to those Ph.D. degree holders who have obtained the Ph.D.degree in accordance with 11.7.2009 regulations, namely,Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure).Although, this aspect was not noticed by the High Court but sincethe Single Judge has directed the consideration of the case ofthe writ petitioners on the basis of M.Phil. degree which wasobtained by them by distance education mode prior to 2009, it isnecessary that their eligibility for the post be examined takinginto consideration the Regulations 2009 of UGC (MinimumQualifications for Appointment). The advertisement and selectionfor Guest Lecturers having been conducted in the year 2012 whenboth the Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards andProcedure) and Regulations 2009 of UGC (MinimumQualifications for Appointment) were applicable. [Para 20] [788-D-F]

Manoj Sharma and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh(Decision of Madhya Pradesh)– referred to.

Dr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav and Anr. vs. University ofAllahabad and Ors. (Decision dated 6.04.2012 ofAllahabd High Court) – not approved.

P. Susheela and Ors. vs. University Grants Commission A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

782SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aand Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 129 : [2015] 5 SCR 643 –referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2015] 5 SCR 643referred toPara 18

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 871 ofB2018

From the Judgment and Order dated 05.12.2012 of the High Courtof Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in Writ Appeal No. 712 of 2012.

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 872 of 2018C

Ms. Prachi Mishra, Arjun Garg, Chaitanya, Mishra Saurabh, Advs.for the Appellants.

Nikhilesh Ramachandran, Adv. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. These two appeals have been filed against the identicallyworded judgments of High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 05.12.2012and 17.01.2013 respectively dismissing the writ appeal filed by the Stateof Madhya Pradesh. The facts and issue in both the appeals beingEcommon, it is sufficient to refer to the facts and pleadings in civil appealarising out of SLP (C) No. 26528 of 2017 for deciding both the appeals.The parties shall be referred to as described in the writ petition.

3. The writ petitioners had passed M.Phil. from differentuniversities under distance education (between the year 2007 to 2009)before 11.07.2009. Writ petitioners were engaged as guest lecturers inFdifferent Government/Semi Government Colleges since before the year2009. Higher Education Department of the Government of MadhyaPradesh issued an order dated 22.02.2012 on the subject “Arrangementof Guest Lecturers in Government Colleges for the remaining period ofAcademic Session 2011-12 and upcoming sessions”.

G

4. The Government order provided for criteria for selection underwhich various marks were allocated for Ph.D and NET/SET, M.Phil.and NET/SET. Regional Additional Director, Higher Education, GwaliorMadhya Pradesh issued an advertisement dated 21.04.2012 invitingapplication for the post of Guest Lecturer in different subjects. WritHPetitioners had applied for different posts of Guest Lecturers through online mode. Their applications were not accepted. On inquiry, theycame to know that those candidates who had obtained M.Phil. degreethrough distance education programme are not qualified.

5. Writ Petition No. 3290 of 2012, Manoj Sharma and others v.State of Madhya Pradesh was filed wherein High Court passed aninterim order on 14.05.2012 and directing the respondents to accept theapplication form of the candidates and the result of the candidates wasto be kept in the seal-cover.

6. Writ Petitioners on the strength of the interim order submittedtheir applications. Writ Petition No. 3290 of 2012, Manoj Sharma andothers versus State of Madhya Pradesh was finally disposed off bylearned Single Judge on 29.08.2012, holding that those candidates whohave cleared M.Phil. qualification before the Regulations 2009, namely,University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure forthe award of M.Phil./Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter shallbe referred to as “Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards andProcedure”) are eligible and their result be declared. Learned SingleJudge issued following directions:

“It is further reported that although petitioner’s case wasconsidered, but by way of interim order, it was directed thathis result will not be declared. Now final order is passed.Petitioner is found eligible, therefore, respondents shallconsider the case of the petitioner as eligible on the basis ofthe aforesaid Master of Philosophy certificate and declarethe result alongwith other candidates.”

7. The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a writ appeal against thejudgments of learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Courtvide its judgment dated 05.12.2012 dismissed the appeal. The State is inappeal against the judgment of the Division Bench.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of theregulations framed by the University Grants Commission, Regulations2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure), the M.Phil./Ph.D.Programmes conducted through distance education are not acceptable.He submits that since M.Phil. degree of the writ petitioners was bydistance education mode, they do not fulfil the qualification for appointmentas Guest Lecturer and the judgment of the learned Single Judge andDivision Bench taking a contrary view is unsustainable.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A9. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent at the timeof hearing. Although a counter affidavit on behalf of the RespondentNo. 1, Manoj Sharma has been filed, supporting the view taken by thelearned Single Judge and the Division Bench. We have considered thesubmission of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.B10.The Regulations 2009 of UGC on Minimum Standards andProcedure were published in Gazette of India on 11.7.2009. Regulation5 which is relevant, is to the following effect:

“Regulation 5. Notwithstanding anything contained in theseRegulations or any other Rule or regulation, for the timeCbeing in force, no University, Institution, Deemed to beUniversity and College/Institution of National Importanceshall conduct M.Phil and Ph.D Programmes through distanceeducation mode.”

11. Learned Single Judge and Division Bench took the view thatDaccording to Regulations 2009 of UGC on Minimum Standards andProcedure, it was only with effect from 11.7.2009 that any university,institution or deemed university were prohibited from conducting M.Phil./Ph.D. through distance education mode hence, degree obtained prior toenforcement of said regulation are not washed out. The High Court hasheld that Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure)Eare prospective in nature and shall not operate retrospectively. LearnedSingle Judge took the view that Regulations 2009 of UGC (MinimumStandards and Procedure) being not retrospective shall not wipe out theM.Phil. qualification already acquired by the writ petitioners prior toabove-said regulation.F12.Regulation 3 under Regulations 2009 of UGC (MinimumStandards and Procedure), clearly provides for enforcement for theregulation from the date of their publication in the Gazette of India.Regulation 3 is as follows:

“They shall come into force with effect from the date of theirGpublication in the Gazette of India.”

13. Thus, it is clear that regulations are prospective in nature andmay not affect the qualifications granted by an university or institutionprior to the enforcement of the regulation. We thus do not find any errorin the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Learned SingleHJudge had thus rightly directed the respondent to consider the case of the writ petitioners on the basis of M.Phil. degree and declare the resultalongwith other candidates.

14. There is another issue which needs to be noticed at this juncture.On the same day when regulations pertaining to Minimum Standardsand Procedure for the award of M.Phil./Ph.D Degree were published,another regulations were published in the Gazette on the same day i.e.on 11.7.2009, namely, UGC(Minimum Qualifications for Appointmentand Career Advancement of Teachers in Affiliated Universities andInstitutions) (3[rd] amendment) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter shall bereferred to as “Regulations 2009 of UGC(Minimum Qualifications forAppointment”).

15. University Grants Commission had issued regulations relatingto minimum qualification for the post of lecturer in the year 2000 whichregulations were amended in 2002 and 2006. According to Regulations2000, Regulation 1.3.3 provides for qualification for Lecturer as follows:

“1.3.3 Lecturer

Good academic record with at least 55% of the marks or, anequivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter gradesO, A, B, C, D, E and F at the Master’s degree level, in therelevant subject from an Indian University, or, an equivalentdegree from a foreign university.

Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates shouldhave cleared the eligibility test (NET) for lecturers conductedby the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC.

Note: NET shall remain the compulsory requirement forappointment 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 concernedsubject up to 31[st] December, 1993, are exempted fromappearing in the NET examination.”

16. As noted above, the above-mentioned regulations wereamended and amendments dated 11.7.2009 were relevant whereas thenote as contained in Regulation 1.3.3 was substituted by following:

“NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility conditionfor recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

AProvided, however, that candidates, who are or have beenawarded Ph.D. Degree in compliance of the “UniversityGrants Commission(minimum standards and procedure foraward of Ph.D Degree), Regulation 2009, shall be exemptedfrom the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition ofNET/SLET for recruitment and appointment of AssistantBProfessor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges /Institutions.”

17. It has to be noticed that the amendment as made in theminimum qualification, now provides that the exemption from NET shallbe given to the Ph.D. degree holders, only when Ph.D. degree has beenCawarded to them in compliance with the Regulations 2009 of UGC

(Minimum Standards and Procedure). The above provision thus, made itmandatory that for lecturers NET qualification is necessary and exemptionshall be granted to those Ph.D. degree holders who have obtained Ph.D.degree in accordance with the Regulations 2009 of UGC (MinimumDStandards and Procedure). The purpose and object of the aboveamendments in both Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standardsand Procedure) as well as Regulations 2009 of UGC (MinimumQualifications for Appointment) is not far to seek. There has beenchallenge to amendments made in Regulations 2009 of UGC (MinimumQualifications for Appointment)in so far as it denied the benefit to Ph.DEdegree holders who had obtained Ph.D prior to 11.7.2009. Writ Petitionswere filed in different High Courts challenging the regulations on differentgrounds including that regulations are arbitrary and violative of Article14 which discriminate the Ph.D. degree holders who have obtained Ph.D.degree prior to 11.7.2009 and those who obtained the degree afterF11.7.2009 in accordance with Regulations 2009 of UGC on MinimumStandards and Procedure.

18. The challenge to regulations were repelled by different HighCourts whereas Allahabad High Court vide its judgment dated 6.4.2012in Dr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav and Another versus University ofGAllahabad and Others has upheld the challenge. Appeals were filedagainst the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court andMadras High Court by the candidates whose writ petitions were dismissedas well as against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated06.04.2012, upholding the contention of the candidates. This Court decidedall the appeals by its judgment reported in P. Susheela and OthersHversus University Grants Commission and Others, (2015) 8 SCC

129. This Court upheld the judgment of the High Courts of Rajasthan,Madras and Delhi and set aside the judgment of the Allahabad HighCourt dated 6.4.2012, upholding that the amendments made in Regulations2009 of UGC(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment) were valid andthere is a valid classification between the candidates who have obtaineddegree prior to Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards andProcedure) and those who obtained the degree in accordance with theabove-said regulation.

19. Thus, rejecting the contention of the private respondent,following was laid down in paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 18:

“16. Similar is the case on facts here. A vested right wouldarise only if any of the appellants before us had actuallybeen appointed to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professors.Till that date, there is no vested right in any of the appellants.At the highest, the appellants could only contend that theyhave a right to be considered for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor. This right is always subject to minimumeligibility conditions, and till such time as the appellants areappointed, different conditions may be laid down at differenttimes. Merely because an additional eligibility condition inthe form of a NET test is laid down, it does not mean thatany vested right of the appellants is affected, nor does itmean that the regulation laying down such minimum eligibilitycondition would be retrospective in operation. Such conditionwould only be prospective as it would apply only at the stageof appointment. It is clear, therefore, that the contentions ofthe private appellants before us must fail.

17. One of the learned counsel for the petitioners argued,based on the language of the direction of the CentralGovernment dated 12-11-2008 that all that the Governmentwanted UGC to do was to “generally” prescribe NET as aqualification. But this did not mean that UGC had toprescribe this qualification without providing for anyexemption. We are unable to accede to this argument for thesimple reason that the word “generally” precedes the word“compulsory” and it is clear that the language of thedirection has been followed both in letter and in spirit bythe UGC regulations of 2009 and 2010.

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

A18. The arguments based on Article 14 equally have to berejected. It is clear that the object of the directions of theCentral Government read with the UGC Regulations of 2009/2010 are to maintain excellence in standards of highereducation. Keeping this object in mind, a minimum eligibilitycondition of passing the national eligibility test is laid down.BTrue, there may have been exemptions laid down by UGC inthe past, but the Central Government now as a matter ofpolicy feels that any exemption would compromise theexcellence of teaching standards in universities/ colleges/institutions governed by the UGC. Obviously, there is nothingCarbitrary or discriminatory in this - in fact it is a core functionof UGC to see that such standards do not get diluted.”

20. Thus, from the above judgment, it is clear that NET qualificationis now minimum qualification for appointment of Lecturer and exemptiongranted to M.Phil. degree holders have been withdrawn and exemptionDis allowed only to those Ph.D. degree holders who have obtained the Ph.D. degree in accordance with 11.7.2009 regulations, namely,Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure).Although, this aspect has not been noticed by the High Court but sincethe learned Single Judge has directed the consideration of the case ofthe writ petitioner on the basis of M.Phil. degree which was obtained byEthem by distance education mode prior to 2009, it is necessary that theireligibility for the post be examined taking into consideration theRegulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment).The advertisement and selection for Guest Lecturers having beenconducted in the year 2012 when both the Regulations 2009 of UGCF(Minimum Standards and Procedure) and Regulations 2009 ofUGC(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment) were applicable.

21. There is nothing on the record as to whether after the judgmentof the learned Single Judge, writ petitioners’ result was declared andthey were selected or appointed. This Court has also passed an interimGorder of 16.08.2013 staying the operation of the judgment of the HighCourt for the period of three months. No further orders have been passedextending the interim order.

22. We are thus of the view that judgment of the High Court needsno interference in this appeal, however, the appeals are to be disposedHoff with the direction to consider the eligibility of the writ petitioner taking also into consideration the Regulations 2009 of UGC (MinimumQualifications for Appointment).

23. Both the appeals are disposed off accordingly.

Divya Pandey Appeals disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H