Service Law – Exemption of NET for Ph.D Holders – Prospective Operation of 2018 UGCR – UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to It) Regulations – In 2009, amendment was made to the UGC Regulations, 2000 (UGCR) – By this amendment, for the first time, the minimum stipulation for the appointment of lecturer was introduced i.e. NET – However, candidates who had acquired their Ph.D. were exempted from qualifying in the NET – On 13.06.2011, the University invited applications for filling up the post of Lecturer in various subjects – The minimum qualification was NET, however, the advertisement exempted candidates who had a Ph.D. in the concerned subject from qualifying the NET – One ‘J’ who applied for the post was ranked in the first position and the respondent was placed at second rank – Respondent challenged the appointment of ‘J’ before the High Court on the ground that it contravened the 2009/10 UGCR, i.e., as ‘J’ had not obtained his Ph.D.(on 23.08.2006) in accordance with the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations – High Court held that the ‘J’ was not qualified to hold the post of Lecturer – Division Bench affirmed the order passed by the Single Judge by holding that the 2016 UGCR amendment which enable those awarded Ph.D. degrees prior the cut-off date of 11.07.2009 to also be considered for appointment as Lecturers was applicable only prospectively, and hence denied the benefit to ‘J’ - On appeal, Held: There are perhaps hundreds of other Ph.D. candidates who had secured their degrees prior to the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations and who were, till the 2009/10 UGCR were brought into force, entitled to claim exemption from NET in every selection for any teaching vacancy in any university in India – The 2018 UGCR, bifurcated the pre- and post-2009 Ph.D. holders into two groups, and allowed both exemption from taking the NET – To construe them as applying only prospectively, would give rise to an absurdity, and defeat the purpose for which the amendment was promulgated – It is the duty of the courts, whether trying original proceedings or hearing an appeal, to take notice of the change in law affecting pending actions and to give effect to the same - To interpret the 2018 UGCR prospectively would imply that a pre-2009 Ph.D. holder’s appointment would be rendered illegal, and after having taught for several years, he/she would lose his/her seniority and all accrued benefits and would now have to take the NET in order to teach – which is clearly unwarranted. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The facts of this case would reveal that the selection process was completed in 2012. There is no doubt that at that stage, the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations and 2009/10 UGCR were in force. Yet the University appointed ‘ J’(Dr.) by applying the existing standards as understood by it. According to the University, the 2009/10 UGCR was incorporated in its statute only in 2013. In the opinion of this court, that detail is irrelevant. What is undeniable is that like ‘J’, there are perhaps hundreds of other Ph.D. candidates who had secured their degrees prior to the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations and who were, till the 2009/10 UGCR were brought into force, entitled to claim exemption from NET in every selection for any teaching vacancy in any university in India. This state of affairs led the UGC to issue clarifications, which the Central Government did not agree to. The appellant ‘J’ fell within that category of Ph.D. holders for whom the UGC intended to soften the rigors of the 2009/10 UGCR. However, lack of approval by the Central Government led to litigation which culminated in P. Suseela. [Para 16][335-C-E]
1.2 P. Suseela appears facially, to adversely clinch the issue with respect to pre-2009 Ph.D. holders. The UGC perhaps realized the hardship which they had to endure (with many of them even appointed in various universities on account of the resolution adopted in UGC’s 471st meeting on 12.08.2010), and therefore amended the regulations once more (2016 UGCR). [Para 17][335-F-G]
AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
1.3 The intention of the UGC to protect the pre-2009 Ph.D. holders, who may have been appointed in various universities and taught for many years, is evidently clear in the language adopted. To make the intention even clearer, the 2018 UGCR, published on 18.07.2018, bifurcated the pre- and post-2009 Ph.D. holders into two groups, and allowed both exemption from taking the NET. [Para 18][336-D]
2. This court is unpersuaded by such contentions. In situations such as these, a retrospective restoration of rights which had earlier been taken away, will certainly affect pending proceedings - however, it is the duty of the courts, whether trying original proceedings or hearing an appeal, to take notice of the change in law affecting pending actions and to give effect to the same. If on such consideration, it is held by the court that an amendment speaks a language which expressly or by clear intendment takes in even pending matters, the court of first instance as well as the court of appeal must have regard to the intention so expressed, and the court of appeal may give effect to such a law even after the judgment of the court of first instance. [Para 22][338-G-H; 339-A-B]
3. When an enactment or an amendment is declaratory, curative or clarificatory, impelled by a felt need to make clear what was always intended, such amendment is usually meant to operate from an antecedent date, or to cover antecedent events. This position was clarified in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal vs. Shelly Products & Ors. [Para 23][339-B-C]
4. The logic pervading all the versions of the UGCR from 1993-2018 (as discussed above) to exempt M. Phil./Ph.D. holders from qualifying in the NET was perhaps premised on the understanding that such a doctorate in one’s chosen subject, involving years of study, would render a greater understanding of the subject compared to most other candidates taking the NET who have only obtained a Master’s degree. Such qualification (M. Phil. or Ph. D.) is undoubtedly awarded for a proven proficiency of the candidate in the concerned subject or discipline. This is apparent from the minimum qualification requirements of different positions as well – for e.g., while a Master’s degree is sufficient for application to the post of Assistant Professor, a Ph.D. is required for applying to the post of Associate Professor onwards. To interpret the 2018 UGCR prospectively would imply that a pre-2009 Ph.D. holder’s appointment would be rendered illegal, and after having taught for several years, he/she would lose his/her seniority and all accrued benefits and would now have to take the NET in order to teach – which is clearly unwarranted. This court therefore, holds that ‘J’ appointment is protected by the 2016 UGCR, which is applicable retrospectively. [Para 26][340-D-G; 341-A]
Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar (2001) 8 SCC 24 : [2001]
1 Suppl. SCR 115 – followed.
Dr. Merlin J.N. v University of Kerala W.P.(C) No. 20055 of 2012 and W.P.(C) No. 2951 of 2013;
P. Suseela v. University Grants Commission (2015) 8 SCC 129 : [2015] 5 SCR 643; Dr. D. Radhakrishnan Pillai v The Travancore Devaswom Board 2016 (2) KLT 245; State of Madhya Pradesh. v. Manoj Sharma (2018)
3 SCC 329 : [2018] 1 SCR 779; Rafiquennessa v. Lal Bahadur Chetri (Dead) Through His Representatives and Ors. [1964] 6 SCR 876; Darshan Singh v. Ram Pal Singh & Ors. [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 212; Noorunissa Begum v. Brij Kishore Sanghi (2015) 17 SCC 128 : [2015] 4 SCR 246; Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal v. Shelly Products & Ors. (2003) 5 SCC 461 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 79; Zile Singh v. State of Haryana (2004) 8 SCC 1 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 272; Manoj Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh W.P. (C) No. 3290 of 2012 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.