UGC eligibility standards upheld as valid policy directions requiring NET/SLET for teaching appointments.

Central Government policy directions under the University Grants Commission Act were treated as binding on UGC regulation-making where they concerned national standards in higher education, so the regulations prescribing NET/SLET as a minimum eligibility condition had to conform to those directions. The challenge that withdrawal of the earlier exemption for M.Phil. and Ph.D. holders was retrospective, arbitrary, or contrary to Article 14 and legitimate expectation failed because no vested right exists to appointment before actual appointment, and a qualification applied at the stage of appointment operates prospectively. The NET/SLET requirement was upheld as a valid standard-setting measure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Central Government's directions under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 bound the University Grants Commission in framing regulations prescribing NET/SLET as a minimum eligibility condition for appointment to teaching posts; (ii) whether the impugned regulations were retrospective, arbitrary, or contrary to legitimate expectation and Article 14 in so far as they withdrew the earlier exemption for M.Phil. and Ph.D. holders.

Issue (i): Whether the Central Government's directions under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 bound the University Grants Commission in framing regulations prescribing NET/SLET as a minimum eligibility condition for appointment to teaching posts.

Analysis: The regulation-making power under the Act was held to be subject to consistency with the Act itself, including the Central Government's power to issue directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes. The directions requiring a common national eligibility test were treated as policy directions aimed at maintaining uniform standards in higher education. It was held that the fact that some regulations under Section 26(1)(e) did not require prior approval did not exclude the binding effect of a valid policy direction under Section 20.

Conclusion: The Central Government's directions were binding, and the UGC regulations had to conform to them.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned regulations were retrospective, arbitrary, or contrary to legitimate expectation and Article 14 in so far as they withdrew the earlier exemption for M.Phil. and Ph.D. holders.

Analysis: It was held that no vested right existed to appointment before actual appointment to the post, and that the appellants had only a right to be considered subject to the prevailing eligibility conditions. A new qualification applicable at the stage of appointment was treated as prospective, not retrospective, even if it affected persons who had earlier enjoyed an exemption. The Court further held that the policy of insisting on NET/SLET to preserve standards of excellence was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and that legitimate expectation must yield to overriding public interest.

Conclusion: The challenge based on retrospectivity, Article 14, and legitimate expectation failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned regulations requiring NET/SLET as the minimum eligibility condition for appointment to teaching posts were upheld, the contrary High Court judgment was set aside, and the connected appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A regulation framed by the University Grants Commission must yield to a valid policy direction issued by the Central Government under the Act, and a candidate has no vested right to appointment or to an exemption from eligibility conditions before actual appointment.

---