https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262152 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. en-us Mon, 16 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Aug 2015 14:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262152 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262152