Retrospective UGC amendment protected pre-2009 Ph.D. holders and upheld a Lecturer appointment despite the NET requirement.

A later clarificatory or remedial amendment can apply retrospectively to pending matters where it expressly extends a benefit to an earlier class of persons. Here, the Court held that the 2016 and 2018 UGC amendments extended NET exemption to candidates who had registered for Ph.D. before 11.07.2009, subject to the stated conditions, and were intended to protect pre-2009 degree holders. It further treated the University's later statutory adoption as irrelevant to the applicable regulatory position because the selection occurred when the governing regime was already in force. On that basis, the candidate's appointment as Lecturer was upheld and the eligibility challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appointment of a candidate who had obtained his Ph.D. before 11.07.2009 could be protected by the later UGC amendments so as to exempt him from the NET requirement and validate his appointment as Lecturer.

Analysis: The regulation regime governing university teaching posts changed in 2009, when NET became the minimum eligibility norm and exemption was confined to candidates who had obtained Ph.D. degrees in accordance with the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations. The Court noted that this position caused hardship to pre-2009 Ph.D. holders and that the UGC later introduced the 2016 and 2018 amendments, which expressly extended exemption to candidates registered for Ph.D. before 11.07.2009, subject to stated conditions. The Court treated these later amendments as clarificatory and remedial, intended to protect pre-2009 degree holders and to operate on pending matters. It further held that the fact that the University adopted the regulations in its statute only in 2013 did not alter the applicable legal position, because the selection itself had taken place while the regulatory regime was in force.

Conclusion: The candidate's appointment was valid and protected by the retrospective operation of the 2016 amendment, and the challenge to his eligibility failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the adverse High Court judgment was set aside, and the appointment was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A clarificatory or remedial statutory amendment that expressly extends a benefit to an earlier class of persons applies retrospectively to pending matters and can validate an appointment made under the earlier regime.

---