2015 (8) TMI 69 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds UGC Regulations for Lecturer Appointments

P. SUSEELA & ORS. Versus UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ORS.

The Supreme Court upheld the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations 2009 and 2010, requiring the National Eligibility Test (NET)/State Level ... Central Government by letter dated 3rd November, 2010 stated candidates seeking appointment to post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor must fulfill minimum qualifications, including condition of passing NET test as prescribed by UGC – Held that:- by Section 20 of University Grants Commission Act, 1956, Central Government is empowered to give directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes which shall guide Commission in discharge of its functions. Vested right would arise only if any of Appellants was actually appointed to post – Till date, there is no vested right in any of appellants, at highest, they could only contend that they have right to be considered for post –Merely because additional eligibility condition in form of NET test was laid down it did not mean that any vested right of Appellants was affected – Object of directions of Central Government were to maintain excellence in standards of higher education and there was nothing arbitrary or discriminatory in this – Larger public interest was nothing less than having highly qualified Assistant Professors to teach in UGC Institutions – Decision in the case of Trimbak Damodhar Rajpurkar v. Assaram Hiraman Patil [1961 (11) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT] followed – Decided against Appellant. Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations (Minimum Qualifications Required for the Appointment And Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (the third Amendment) Regulation 2009.2. Applicability of NET/SLET as minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.3. The role and power of the Central Government under Section 20 of the UGC Act.4. Retrospective effect of regulations and vested rights.5. The doctrine of legitimate expectation.6. The binding nature of High Court judgments and the issue of conflicting decisions.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional validity of UGC Regulations 2009:The Supreme Court reviewed the judgments of four High Courts regarding the constitutional validity of the UGC Regulations 2009, which required NET/SLET as the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers. The Delhi, Madras, and Rajasthan High Courts upheld these regulations, stating they do not violate Article 14 and apply prospectively. Conversely, the Allahabad High Court initially found these regulations invalid, stating they were issued outside the powers conferred by the UGC Act, but later upheld the same regulations in a subsequent judgment.2. Applicability of NET/SLET as minimum eligibility condition:The UGC Regulations of 2009 and subsequent 2010 regulations mandated NET/SLET as the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers/Assistant Professors. The Supreme Court upheld these regulations, emphasizing that the Central Government's policy directions under Section 20 of the UGC Act aimed to maintain a minimum standard of excellence in higher education, given the varying standards of M. Phil. and Ph.D. degrees across different universities.3. Role and power of the Central Government under Section 20 of the UGC Act:The Court clarified that Section 20 of the UGC Act empowers the Central Government to issue directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes, which the UGC must follow. The Court upheld the Central Government's directives from 2008 and 2010, stating they were policy decisions aimed at maintaining educational standards and were within the government's powers.4. Retrospective effect of regulations and vested rights:The Court distinguished between existing rights and vested rights, explaining that a vested right would only arise if the appellants had been appointed to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor. Since no such appointments had been made, the appellants only had a right to be considered for the post, subject to fulfilling the minimum eligibility conditions. The Court held that the additional eligibility condition of passing the NET test did not affect any vested rights and was prospective in operation.5. Doctrine of legitimate expectation:The Court rejected the appellants' argument based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, stating that any legitimate expectation must yield to the larger public interest of maintaining high standards in higher education. The Court referred to previous judgments, emphasizing that legitimate expectation cannot override public policy decisions aimed at ensuring educational excellence.6. Binding nature of High Court judgments and conflicting decisions:The Court addressed the issue of conflicting judgments by the Allahabad High Court. It criticized the subsequent Division Bench for not following the earlier binding judgment and set aside both judgments. The Court emphasized that a Division Bench judgment is binding on subsequent benches unless referred to a Full Bench if there is a disagreement.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the UGC Regulations 2009 and 2010, mandating NET/SLET as the minimum eligibility condition for the recruitment and appointment of Lecturers/Assistant Professors. The Court affirmed the Central Government's policy directions under Section 20 of the UGC Act and clarified that these regulations were prospective and did not violate vested rights or legitimate expectations. The conflicting judgments of the Allahabad High Court were set aside, reinforcing the binding nature of earlier judgments within the same High Court.