THE HONOURABLE MR.M.Y.EQBAL, CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HONOURABLE MR v. University Grants Commission

1. University Grants Commission Rep. by its Secretary, 9, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 022.2. The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 6.3. The Bharathiyar University, Rep. by its Registrar, Coimbatore – 641 046....Respondents in all WPsW.P.Nos. 11202 to 11204 of 2010R.Punitha… Petitioner in all the writ petitionsvs.1. University Grants Commission Rep. by its Secretary, 9, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 022.2. The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 6.3. The Bharathiyar University, Rep. by its Registrar, Coimbatore – 641 046.4. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education (F2) Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 9. .. Respondents in allthe writ petitions.W.P.Nos. 12037 to 12044 of 2010B. Vijaya… Petitioner in W.P.No.12037/2010S.Subeena Begum… Petitioner in W.P.No.12038/2010R.Vivekanandan.. Petitioner in W.P.No.12039/2010S.Nanammal/Jeyanthi.. Petitioner in W.P.No.12040/2010K.Murugan.. Petitioner in W.P.No.12041/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ M.Subash Chandra Bose.. Petitioner in W.P.No.12042/2010S.Karthikeyan.. Petitioner in W.P.No.12043/2010C.Shanmugaraj.. Petitioner in W.P.No.12044/2010vs.1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.2. University Grants Commission Rep. by its Secretary, 9, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 022.3. Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009.4. The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 6.… Respondents inall the petitions. W.P.No. 12104 & 12105 of 20101. V.Maragathavalli2. P.S.Buvaneswari3. G.Gandhi Mathy4. Ezhilarasi Hilda .. Petitioners inboth the petitions.vs.1. University Grants Commission Rep. by its Secretary, 9, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 022.2. The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 6... Respondents inboth the petitions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.11789 of 2010 & WP 11796/2010M.Anbazhagan.. Petitioner in WP No.11789/2010M.Mumtaz.. Petitioner in WP No.11796/2010vs.1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.2. University Grants Commission Rep. by its Secretary, 9, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 022.3. Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009.4. The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 6.… Respondents in both WPsW.P.Nos.12334 to 12336 & 12338, 12339 of 2010P.Vidya… Petitioners in W.P.Nos.12334/2010T.Kodeeswaran..Petitioner in W.P.No.12335/2010K.Girija ..Petitioner in W.P.No.12336/2010K.Rajendran.. Petitioner in W.P.No.12338/2010J.Dharmalingam… Petitioner in W.P.No.12339/2010Vs.1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.2. University Grants Commission Rep. by its Secretary, 9, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 022. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009.4. The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 6.… Respondents in all the petitions. W.P.No.27083 of 2006N.Sailapathi.. Petitionervs.1. Chairman, University Grants Commission, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002. 2. The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009.3. The Director of Collegiate Education, EVK Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.4. Secretary, State Level Eligibility Test (SLET), For Lectureship, Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore. 5. Registrar, Anna University, University Buildings, Chennai – 600 025... RespondentsW.P.Nos. 13815 & 13816 of 2010N.Vanaja.. Petitioner in W.P.No.13815/2010T.Aryamala.. Petitioner in W.P.No.13816/2010vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.2. University Grants Commission Rep. by its Secretary, 9, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 022.3. Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009.4. The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 6. … Respondents inall the petitions.W.P.Nos. 13663 to 13665 of 2010C.Nagarajan.. Petitioner in W.P.No. 13663 of 2010T.S.Santhi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.13664 of 2010M.Selvamani.. Petitioner in W.P.No.13665 of 2010Vs.1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.2. University Grants Commission Rep. by its Secretary, 9, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 022.3. Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 6.… Respondents inall the petitionsW.P.No. 9483 of 20101. V.Manjula2. S.Chandra3. R.Ravichandran4. A.Radha5. A. Anitha Ponmudi.. Petitioners vs.1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2. Directorate of College Education, Chennai – 600 060.3. Teachers Recruitment Board, Represented by its Chairman, E.V.K.Sampath Maaligai, D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai – 6.4. University Grants Commission Rep by its Secretary, No.9, Bahadursha Zafar Marg New Delhi-110 022. (R-4 impleaded as per order in 7.6.2010) .. Respondents W.P.Nos. 25891 & 25892 of 2010 M.Anbazhagan.. Petitioner in W.P.No.25891 of 2010M.Prabhakar.. Petitioner in W.P.No.25892 of 2010Vs.1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. University Grants Commission Rep. by its Secretary, 9, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 022.... Respondent 1 & 2 in WP.25891/10 & 25892/20103. Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009.4. The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 6.... Respondents 3 to 4 inWP 25891/2010.WP No.12175/2010 : Petition Presented to issue a writ of Mandamus,forbearing the 2nd respondent from rejecting the application of thepetitioner having Serial No.027057 dated 12.4.2010 for havingmistakenly mentioned his qualification as Phd Degree and consequentlydirect the 2nd respondent to consider his M.Phil degree (prior 1993)for his selection in the post of Assistant Professors in TamilnaduCollegiate Educational Service.WP.No.12037 to 12044/2010, 11789, 11796, 12334 to 12336/2010, 12338 &12339/2010: Petition presented to issue writ of Certiorarifiedmandamus, Calling for the records pertaining UGC (MinimumQualification required for the appointment and career Advancement ofteachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (3rd Amendment) Regulations 2009 dated 11.7.2009 framed by the 2ndRespondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to continueto follow the pre-amended regulations pertaining to the M.Philholders.WP NO.27083 of 2006: Petition to issue a writ of Mandamus,directingthe 1st respondent (UGC) and the Government of Tamilnadu through the2nd and 3rd respondents to formulate the correct scheme for therecruitment of lecturers in Universities and Colleges in Tamilnaduthrough legally constituted selection bodies.WP No.12171, 12172, 12174, 12176, 11202 & 11203/2010, 12104 &12105/2010, 13815/10 & 13816 OF 2010, 13663 TO 13665/2010:Petitions presented to issue writs of Declaration,declaring theorder of the 1st respondent in F.No.5-4/2005 U.I(A) dated 12.11.2008and the consequential University Grants Commission (MinimumQualifications required for the appointment and career Advancement ofTeachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it ) (3rdAmendment)Regulations 2009 notified in the Gazettee on 11.7.2009 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Notification issued by the 4th Respondent in Advt.No.4/2010dated 29.3.2010 for the post of Asst. Professors in the Tamil NaduCollegiate Educational Service as illegal, arbitrary andunconstitutional in so far as the NET/SLET is made minimumqualification for the post of lecturer even for those who obtainedM.Phil degree prior to 31.12.93 and direct the 4th respondent toconsider the application of the Petitioner for the Selection for thePost of Asst.Professor.WP No.9483 of 2010: Petition presented to issue a writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in the proceedingsof the 3rd respondent Board in Advertisement No.4 of 2010 dt29.3.2010 and quash para 3 of the said Notification dealing witheducational qualification in so far as it denies the candidatespossessing M.Phil degree from being eligible to participate in therecruitment and consequently direct the respondents to entertain andconsider applications of the petitioners herein who are M.Phil degreeholders for recruitment to the post of Asst. Professors in therelevant subject.WP No.25891/2010 and 25892/2010: Petition presented to issue a writof Certiorari Calling for the records pertaining to the order inD.O.No.8-7/2010 U.I.(A) dated 03.11.2010 issued by the 1st Respondentand quash the same.For Appellants in W.A.Nos.893, 894,900 to 902, 928, 929, 930 to 933/2010 942 to 945/2010 & :: Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram,922/2010 Senior Counsel for M/s.C.UmaFor Appellants inW.A.Nos.922/2010 :: Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Suresh ViswanathFor Appellant inW.A.No.1032/2010 :: Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for M/s.S.JothiraniFor Petitioners inW.P.Nos.12171,12172, 12174 to 1217611202 to 11204/2010 :: Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram Senior Counsel for Mrs. C.UmaFor Petitioners inW.P.Nos.12037 to 12044, 11789,11796, 12334 to 12336, 12338,12339, 25891 & 25892/2010 ::: Mr.R.Subramanian Mr.B.Ravi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners inW.P.No.12104 & 12105/2010:::: Mr.B.S.SundaramoorthiFor Petitioner inW.P.No.27083/2010:::: Mr.M.V.KrishnanFor Petitioner inW.P.Nos.13815, 13816, 13663 to13665 of 2010:::: Mr.V.SanjeeviFor Petitioner inW.P.No.9483 of 2010:::: Mr.Muthukumarasamy, SC for Mr.A.JenasenanFor Respondents inW.P.Nos.12037 to 12044, 1210412105, 11796, 12334 to 12336,12338, 12339, 13815, 13816, 13663 to 13665 of 2010:::: Mr.M.Ravindran, Addl.Solicitor General Assisted by Mr.P.Chandrasekaran, SCGSC and Mr.A.S.Vijayaraghavan,SCGSCFor Respondent 1 inW.A.893, 894, 900 to 902/2010 928, 929, 930 to 933/2010942 to 944/2010 WP 12171, 12172,12174 to 12176For Respondent 2 inW.A.No.922/2010For Respondent 2 in:::: Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy,W.P.No12037 to 12044/2010 Senior Counsel 11789, 11796, 12334 to 12336, for Mr.P.R.Gopinathan12338, 12339, 13815, 13816, Standing Counsel for UGC13663 to 13665/2010For Respondent 1 inW.P.No.11202 to 11204 &27083 of 2006For Respondent R4,For Respondent 2 inWP 25891 & 25892/2010For Respondent 1 inW.P.No.11789,929/2010:::: Mr.K.Balachandran, SCGSC https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondent 4 inW.P.No.25891 & 25892 of 2010::: Mr.K.Ravindranath, SCGSCFor Respondent 1 inW.A.No.922, 1032 & 945/2010For Respondent 2 inW.A.No.893, 894, 900 to 902For Respondent 4 inW.A.900 to 902 & 932 & 933/2010928,929, 930, 931 to 933, 942 to944 of 2010&For Respondents 3 & 4in W.P.No.25891, 25892/2010For Respondents 1 to 3In W.P.No.9483 of 2010For Respondents 2 & 4In W.P.No.11202 to 11204/2010For Respondents 3 & 4:::: Mr.P.Wilson,In W.P.Nos.11789 & 11796/2010 Additional Advocate GeneralFor Respondents 3 & 4 Assisted byIn W.P.Nos.12037 to 12044/2010 Mr.G.Sankaran, WP Nos.12334 to 12338 & 12339/10 Spl.Govt.Pleader 1336/2010 (Education)For Respondent 2 in W.P.Nos.12104, 12105, 12171,For Respondents 2 & 3 inWP No.27083/200612172, 12174 to 12176/2010For Respondents 3 & 4In W.P.Nos.13815, 13816,13663 to 13665/2010.25891 & 25892/2010. COMMON JUDGMENTThe Hon’ble Chief Justice &T.S.Sivagnanam, JThese appeals have been filed against the common judgment andorder dated 22.04.2010 passed in a batch of writ petitions, wherebythe learned single Judge dismissed all the writ petitions holdingthat the petitioners/appellants are not entitled to the relief soughtfor by them. 2. Since, common questions of law and facts are involved inthese appeals they had been heard together and are disposed of bythis common order.3. In W.P.No.7116 of 2010, and W.P.Nos.7580, 7759, 8034, 8037,8077/2010 the petitioners/appellants prayed for a writ of mandamus to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ forbear the respondents from insisting on National EntranceTest/State Level Entrance Test (in short NET/SLET) qualification forcandidates who have passed M.Phil prior to 1993 for being eligible toapply for the post of Assistant Professors in Tamil Nadu CollegiateEducational Service, and consequently, direct the respondents toentertain the application of the petitioners for the post ofAssistant Professor pursuant to the notice dated 29.03.2010 withoutimposing the condition of requirement of NET/SLET qualification. 4. In some writ petitions prayer was made for declarationdeclaring the University Grants Commission (Minimum QualificationsRequired for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers inUniversities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2009 asnotified on 11.07.2009 is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and16 of the Constitution of India in so far as NET/SLET made minimumqualification for Lecturer Post without giving special exemption forthe candidates who got their M.Phil degrees prior to 31.12.1993. 5. In some of the writ petitions prayer was made for theissuance of a writ of mandamus to call for the records relating tothe Governmental Orders in G.O.Ms.No.412, Higher Education (F2)Department dated 07.12.2009 and quash the same in so far as the saidGovernmental Order does not award 9 marks to the candidates who havecompleted only M.Phil degree and consequently direct the respondentsto award 9 marks to the petitioners therein who have completed theirM.Phil Degrees in the concerned subject prior to 1993 whileprocessing their applications for the post of Assistant Professor. 6. The appellants/writ petitioners’ case in brief is that in theUGC (Qualification Required of a Person to be appointed to theTeaching Staff of a University and Institutions Affiliated to it)Regulations, 1982 (in short “1982 Regulations”), which came intoforce on 01.07.1983, the qualification of NET/SLET was not introducedas a necessary qualification for the appointment to the post oflecturer. For the first time in the year 1989 the University GrantsCommission on the basis of the recommendations made by R.C.MehrotraCommittee and the Vice Chancellors’ Conference held in 1989 decidedto hold comprehensive National Test to decide the eligibility for thepost of lecturer. However in the year 1990, it is stated that byproceedings dated 01.08.1990 the University of Madras took a decisionthat the candidates who have completed M.Phil Degree up to the year1992 are exempted from SLET. In 1991 the University Grants Commission(Minimum Qualifications Required for Appointment and CareerAdvancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliatedto it) Regulations,1991 (hereinafter referred to as “1991Regulations”) was framed. On the basis of the 1991 Regulations theUGC decided that the candidates must clear the eligibility test forappointment to the post of Lecturer. The said Regulations viz., 1991Regulations were also upheld by the Supreme Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. On 10.02.1993 the UGC granted exemption to those candidates,who have already awarded M.Phil degree upto 31st March, 1991 and thosecandidates, who will submit their Ph.D. thesis before 31st December,1993, from appearing NET. The UGC by its circular dated 15.06.1993further extended the date from 31.03.1991 to 31.12.1992 in respect ofM.Phil candidates. On 04.04.2000 amendment to “1991 Regulations” wasissued, which stated that “NET shall remain the compulsoryrequirement for appointment as lecturer even for candidates havingPh.D. degree. However, the candidates who have completed M.Phildegree or have submitted Ph.D. thesis in the concerned subject upto31st December, 1993 are exempted from appearing in the NETexamination”. Later the exemption was further modified to the effectthat Ph.D. candidates upto the year 2002 were also granted exemptionfrom NET/SLET. The appellants completed their M.Phil Degrees before31.12.1993. 8. On 11.06.2006 the University Grants Commission in its 428thmeeting resolved that “NET shall remain compulsory requirement forappointment as Lecturer even for those with post graduate degree.However, the candidates having Ph.D. Degree in the concerned subjectare exempted from NET for P.G. Level and U.G. Level teaching. Thecandidates having M.Phil Degree in the concerned subject are exemptedfrom NET for UG Level teaching only”. 9. On 14.06.2006 UGC (Minimum Qualifications Required forAppointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities andInstitutions Affiliated to it) (2nd Amendment), Regulations 2006 wasissued amending the provision with regard to NET qualification in theRegulations, 2002 wherein it is stated as follows:- “NET shall remain compulsory requirement forappointment as Lecturer for those with post graduatedegree. However, the candidates having Ph.D. Degree in theconcerned subject are exempted from NET for P.G. Level andU.G. Level teaching. The candidates having M.Phil Degree inthe concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG Levelteaching only”. 10. On 05.07.2006 G.O.Ms.No.197, Higher Education Department,was issued by the State Government for recruitment of Lecturers inGovernment Arts and Science Colleges. The holders of NET/SLETqualification filed W.P.No.21345 of 2006 challenging the 14.06.2006amendment to the Regulations. The said writ petition was ultimatelydismissed. In the subsequent writ petition viz., W.P.No.32958 of2006, while dismissing the writ petition on 24.03.2007, the Courtfurther added that the M.Phil holders of pre 31.12.1993 can also beequated with M.Phil holders with NET/SLET in order to gain theweightage marks of 6. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. On 21.07.2008 the University Grants Commission in its 449thmeeting held on 21.07.2008 considered the Final Report of the NETReview Committee and the Reports of the UGC Pay Review Committeeresolved that the candidates, who are already registered for M.Philand completed the same up to 30th June, 2009 be exempted from NET forUG teaching. However, NET/SLET shall be compulsory for the candidatescompleting their M.Phil on or after 1st July, 2009”. 12. On 12.11.2008 a Policy Direction was issued by theDepartment of Higher Education, Ministry of Human ResourceDevelopment, Government of India under Section 20(1) of the UGC Act,1956 which reads as follows:- “(1) The UGC shall, for serving the national purposeof maintaining standards of higher education, frameappropriate regulations within a period of thirty days fromthe date of issue of this order prescribing that qualifyingin NET/SLET shall generally be compulsory for all personsappointed to teaching positions of Lecturer/AssistantProfessor in Higher Education, and only persons who posesdegree of Ph.D. after having been enrolled/admitted to aprogramme notified by a Commission, after it has satisfieditself on the basis of expert opinion, as to be or havealways been in conformity with the procedure ofstandardization of Ph.D. prescribed by it, and also thatthe degree of Ph.D. was awarded by a University orInstitution Deemed to be University notified by the UGC ashaving already complied with the procedure prescribed underthe regulations framed by the Commission for the purpose. (2) The UGC shall notify the date or dates from whichexemption from qualifying in NET/SLET in respect ofUniversities/Institutions Deemed to be Universities as wellas the discipline for which such exemption is being grantedonly on the recommendations of a Committee of Experts to beconstituted by the Commission and that the experts thereinshall be persons of high eminence in the respectivedisciplines for which the persons possessing Ph.D. areconsidered for exemption from qualifying NET/SLET. (3)……… “ 13. University Grants Commission (Minimum QualificationsRequired for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers inUniversities and Institutions Affiliated to it) 3rd AmendmentRegulations, 2009 was issued on 11.07.2009 amending Regulation 2006,wherein it has been stated as follows:- “NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibilitycondition for recruitment for appointment of Lecturers inUniversities/Colleges/Institutions.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. The Higher Education (F2) Department, Government of TamilNadu issued G.O.Ms.No.412 dated 07.12.2009 awarding 6 marks forM.Phil with NET/SLET or M.Phil prior to 31.12.1993 for selection ofLecturers in Government Arts and Science Colleges. 15. On 29.03.2010 the Teachers Recruitment Board called forapplications for direct recruitment for the post of AssistantProfessor in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educations Service prescribing thefollowing educational qualification. “EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION:- (a) All candidates other than SC/ST: Pass in PostGraduate Degree in the relevant subject with a minimum of55% marks and a pass in the UGC/CSIR/JRF/NET/SLET in therelevant subject. (or) Pass in Post Graduate Degree in the relevant subjectwith a minimum of 55% marks and Ph.D. in the relevantsubject.(b) For SC/ST candidates and all physicallyhandicapped candidates: Pass in Post Graduate Degree in therelevant subject with a minimum of 50% marks and a pass inthe UGC/CSIR/JRF/NET/SLET /SLST in the relevant subject.”16. Aggrieved by the qualification fixed for the post ofAssistant Professors and the removal of the exemption for pre31.12.1993 M.Phil candidates from NET/SLET qualification forappointment to the post of Assistant Professor, the appellants/writpetitioners filed the above batch of writ petitions, which wereultimately dismissed by the learned single Judge. Hence, the presentappeals. 17. The learned single Judge, after considering the entire factsof the case and the regulations framed from time to time by theUniversity Grants Commission came to the conclusion that a group ofpersons like the petitioners having no minimum qualification as perthe 2009 Regulations, are not entitled for exemption and that too bythe order of the Board. Hence, these appeals.18. We have heard Mrs Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counselappearing for the appellants and some of the writ petitioners,Mr.R.Subramanian, Mr.B.S.Sundamoorthi, Mr.M.V.Krishnan,Mr.V.Sanjeevi, Mr.A.Jenasenan, learned counsel appearing for therespective writ petitioners and Mr.M.Ravindran, learned AdditionalSolicitor General, appearing for the Union of India,Mr.R.Krishanmoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing for University https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Grants Commission and Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional AdvocateGeneral appearing for the State. 19. Learned counsel for the respective appellants submitted thatthe learned single Judge misconstrued the scope of the writ petitionsfiled before this Court, which is evident from the fact that when thesubstantial question of law is as to whether the amendment of theMinimum Qualification Regulations, 2009, dated 11th July, 2009, isarbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution,learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions without even awaiting thesubmissions of the UGC when on the date of hearing on 21st April,2010, the counsel for the UGC without making any submissions merelyasked for four weeks time to get instructions. It was furthersubmitted that the learned Judge ought to have held that theamendment published in the gazette dated 11th July, 2009 which imposedqualification for Lecturers in Universities that requiring NET/SLETqualification as mandatory for appointment of lecturers inUniversities/Colleges/Institutions is illegal insofar as the saidamendment has been made without giving any exemption to thecandidates who have completed their M.Phil degree prior to December,1993. Further argument was advanced that the sudden withdrawal ofthe exemption from possessing NET/SLET qualification granted to thosecandidates who have completed M.Phil Degree prior to 1993 and whohave been availing exemption till date tantamount to arbitrarinessand is a miscarriage of justice.20. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on thelast call notice issued by the Bharathiar University dated 16th June,2009, calling for applications for SLET exam, wherein the exemptionwas given to the candidates, who have passed their M.Phil degree by31st December, 1993 (or) who have submitted their Ph.D. thesis to aUniversity on or before 31st December, 2002.21. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended thatwhen the long standing exemption availed by the appellants waswithdrawn, the appellants were not even given an opportunity toattempt the NET/SLET examination as no NET/SLET examination wasconducted between 11th July, 2009 (date of amendment of the MinimumQualification Regulations) and 29th March, 2010 (date of calling ofapplications by the Teachers Recruitment Board). Therefore in theprocess of withdrawing the exemptions, which was available to theappellants for a long period, the principles of fairness and equityhave been completely compromised as a result of which the appellantshave been deprived of the opportunity of applying for recruitment asAssistant Professor in Government Colleges. It was further submittedthat though the appellants had a reasonable opportunity to appear inthe examinations in June, 2006, they were led to believe that theywere exempted from acquiring NET/SLET qualification. It was alsobrought to the notice of the Court that candidates who had completedM.Phil qualification by 1993, though they applied for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ examination, their applications were returned by the BharathiarUniversity on account of the exemption provision as shown in the callnotice. It was also submitted that while the exemption from NET/SLETqualification was founded on sound reason, the sudden withdrawal ofexemption was done without any reason or logic as is evident fromG.O. Ms. No.350 of the Higher Education Department. The grant ofexemption from NET/SLET for persons who have passed M.Phil Degreeprior to 1993 was based on the reason that prior to 1993, thecurriculum mandated the candidates to complete two project papers,whereas after 1993, it was reduced to one project paper. The abovereason for exemption was lost sight of by learned single Judge. Itwas also submitted that the exercise of administrative power shouldbe based on valid and informed reasons and cannot be based on whimsand caprices of the public authority. It was also submitted thatmerely because UGC has power to fix the minimum qualification forrecruitment to Government Colleges, the earlier exemption fromNET/SLET for candidates, who had passed M.Phil prior to 31st Dec.,1993, cannot be withdrawn without any rhyme or reason. The denial ofthe longstanding exemption has suddenly rendered the appellantsineligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professors in the TamilNadu Collegiate Educational Service. Thus, the arbitrary, suddenand unreasoned amendment to the UGC Minimum Qualification Regulationsis violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and againstthe doctrine of legitimate expectation. 22. Learned counsel placed heavy reliance on the decision of theSupreme Court in the case of University Grants Commission v. SadhanaChaudhary & others. Etc reported in JT 1996 (8) SC 234. According tothe learned counsel, the impugned Regulation should not operate tothe prejudice of persons, who having regard to the qualificationsprescribed in the earlier Regulations, had registered for the Ph.DDegree or had joined study for M.Phil. degree course. Inasmuch forthat reason provision was made for granting exemption to suchcandidates with the condition that they should have passed M.Phil.examination or should have submitted Ph.D. thesis by a particulardate. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners constitute adistinct class, who could be treated separately insofar as therequirement of clearing the eligibility test is concerned. Learnedcounsel submitted that on the basis of the ratio decided in theaforesaid judgment, the impugned Regulation on the decision of theMinistry of Human Resources Department, Government of India isviolative of Right to Equality enshrined in Article 14 of theConstitution of India. 23. Last, but not the least, learned counsel appearing for therespective appellants and writ petitioners have drawn our attentionto the relevant provisions of the University Grants Commission Act(in short ‘UGC Act’) and submitted that in no case, the impugnedRegulation followed by subsequent notification and circular shall begiven retrospective effect. According to the learned counsel, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ University Grants Commission is the competent authority to prescribethe qualifications, and the decision of the Commission cannot andshall not be superseded by the decision of the Central Government. Itis contended that in any view of the matter, the vacancy arose beforethe notification of 2009 i.e., before the Regulation came into forceand therefore, it will not apply to the present case. 24. On the other hand, Mr. R.Krishnamoorthy, learned seniorcounsel appearing for the University Grants Commission first drawnour attention to the Circular dated 10.2.1993 and submitted that bythe said circular exemption from appearing in NET select test wasgiven to the candidates including those who have already been awardedM.Phil up to 31.03.1991. However, the said cut off date prescribed inthe said notification dated 10.2.1993 was extended to the candidates,who have completed M.Phil up to 31.12.92. On 21.6.1995, an amendmentwas brought whereby candidates who submitted Ph.D thesis or passedM.Phil examination by 31.12.1993 were exempted from the purview ofeligibility test conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited byUGC. Learned senior counsel submitted that a Regulation wasintroduced on 24.12.1998 prescribing NET as a compulsoryqualification through exemption conducted by UGC, CSIR or similartest accredited by UGC. On 4.4.2010, Regulations were again framedmaking NET as a compulsory requirement through the exams conducted byUGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by UGC. Learned senior counselsubmitted that the said Regulation dated 04.04.2010 was insupersession of earlier Regulations dated 19.09.1991 and 24.12.1998.By this Regulation NET was made compulsory even for candidates havingPh.D degree. However, candidates who have completed M.Phil degree orsubmitted Ph.D thesis in the concerned subject upto 31.12.93 wereexempted. Learned counsel further submitted that on 31.07.2002, firstamendment was brought about in the Regulation whereby NET remainedcompulsory requirement for PH.D holders. It was reiterated that toclaim exemption, the candidates should have completed M.Phil degreeor obtained Ph.D degree prior to 31.12.2002. 25. Mr.Krishnamoorthy, then drawn our attention to the secondamendment dated 14.6.2006, which was brought based on the interimreport of Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr.B.L.Mungekar.Under the said amendment also, NET remained compulsory requirement.But as regards Ph.D degree holders in the concerned subject, NET wasexempted for PG and UG level teaching. As regards, M.Phil degreeholders, NET was exempted only for Under Graduate level teaching.Learned counsel submitted that in the year 2008, the Ministry ofHuman Resources Department, Government of India, in exercise of powerunder Section 20(1) of the UGC Act, issued direction making NET ascompulsory for the teaching post and to restrain the UGC fromgranting any blanket exemption from NET/SLET unless the degree ofPh.D has been awarded in terms of standard and quality laid down bythe Commission. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

26. Learned counsel submitted that on 11.07.2009, the thirdamendment was brought about under which NET/SLET remained the minimumeligibility condition, apart from educational qualification forrecruitment and appointment of lecturers in the Universities/Colleges/ Institutions. However, the candidates who have awarded Ph.Ddegree in compliance of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure forAwarding Ph.D degree) Regulation, 2009, only shall be exempted fromthe requirement of NET/SLET. According to the learned senior counsel,finally on 30.06.2010, Regulations, 2010 were framed superseding theearlier Regulations under which NET was made compulsory forappointment to the teaching post. In the amended Regulation, however,holders of Ph.D degree in line with the 2009 Regulations for grant ofPh.D degrees were alone exempted. Learned senior counsel submittedthat although UGC by resolution dated 12.08.2010 sought to exemptcandidates who obtained Ph.D degree on or before 2009, and candidateswho had registered themselves for Ph.D degree on or before31.12.2009, and the said Regulation was forwarded to the Ministry ofHuman Resources Department, Government of India, but the saidrecommendation of the Commission was rejected, and it has beenreiterated that NET/SLET examination shall be the only eligibilitycriteria for appointment to the teaching post. 27. Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General,appearing for the Union of India-Human Resources Development, on theother hand, drew our attention to the counter affidavit and submittedthat in the year 1993, the Mehrotra Committee, which was constitutedin the year 1993 by the UGC, was specifically asked to examine andrecommend a structure of emoluments and conditions of services of theUniversity and College teachers keeping in view the necessity ofattracting and retaining talented persons in the teaching profession.As a step towards achieving the goal, the Committee recommendedqualifying in NET as an essential condition for recruitment to thepost of lecturer in the University/College throughout the country.The Government of India after 17 years of introduction of NET feltthe need to comprehensively evaluate the NET, and the object of it soas to remove the disparities and heterogeneities in the standards ofevaluation and teaching prevailing among a large number of collegesand universities. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted thatthe Government of India in view of its deep concern about the qualityof education set up a Review Committee consisting of Experts toreview the scheme of NET by order dated 10.11.2005. The Committeeconstituted under the Chairmanship of Prof. Bhalchandra Mungekar andother eminent experts to review the NET had recommended in its reportdated 26.7.07 that NET/SLET should be retained as a compulsoryrequirement for appointment of lecturers at undergraduate andpostgraduate levels irrespective of candidates possessing the degreeof M.Phil or Ph.D. The report of the Mungekar Committee wasconsidered by the UGC in its meeting held on 21.07.2008, wherein itwas inter alia resolved that NET/SLET or Ph.D shall remain theminimum eligibility condition for recruitment of lecturers in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Universities, colleges and other institutions. Learned AdditionalSolicitor General submitted that the Government after considering thereport of the Mungekar Committee in the light of the recommendationsof UGC Act, issued a direction that the UGC to serve the nationalpurpose of maintaining standards of higher education, frameappropriate regulations within a period 30 days prescribing thatqualifying in the NET/SLET shall be generally compulsory for allpersons to be appointed to teaching positions of lecturers orAssistant Professor in Universities and other Institutions impartinghigher education and only persons who possess degree of Ph.D afterhaving been enrolled/admitted to a programme notified by UGC andafter it satisfy itself on the basis of the expert opinion, that suchPh.D degree has been obtained in conformity with the procedure andstandards prescribed by it under the Regulations framed for thepurpose, may be exempted. 28. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that UGC hasbeen directed not to give any blanket or general exemption fromNET/SLET to any university or institution unless the Ph.D awarded byan university or an institution meets the same level of rigor interms of standards and quality as laid down by the UGC for eachdiscipline under the Regulations. In compliance with the abovementioned policy directive of the Central Government dated12.11.2008, the UGC had notified regulations, namely, the UniversityGrants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for appointment and careeradvancement of teachers in Universities and Colleges) (3rd Amendment)Regulations, 2009 whereby it specified that qualifying NET/SLET wouldbe the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointmentof lecturers in universities and colleges with exemption to beprovided to persons who have obtained Ph.D degree in accordance withthe standards prescribed by the UGC. It is submitted that the firstproviso of clause 2 of the UGC Minimum Qualifications forappointment and career advancement of teachers in Universities andColleges) (3rd Amendment) Regulations, 2009 empowers the UGC toprovide relaxation in prescribed qualifications in a particularsubject in which NET is not being conducted or enough number ofcandidates are not available with NET qualification for a specificperiod. The intent of the said proviso is that the relaxation inqualifying NET was to be granted by UGC in a particular subject for aspecified period of time before the commencement of the recruitmentprocess where after due diligence it was concluded that sufficientnumber of candidates are not available. The said relaxation would bebased on sound justification and would apply to affected universitiesfor a particular subject for a specific period and no individualapplications would be entertained. 29. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that theintent of policy directive is to raise the standard of highereducation by giving quality teaching through induction of talent intothe academic profession at the entry stage. Emphasizing the same, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directions were issued to the UGC by the Central Government inexecise of its power by sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the UGC Act,reiterating the principle of attracting quality talent to teaching asa national policy. It is submitted that the Government has got fullpowers under Section 20 to issue directions on matters pertaining topolicy and the UGC ‘shall’ be guided by such direction. The questionof national policy may pertain to any of the items, including that offraming regulations and prescribing minimum qualifications and it isobligatory on the part of the Government, and in fact it is a matterof national policy, to ensure that best quality teachers are providedto the students. Therefore, learned Additional Solicitor Generalsubmitted that the impugned regulations stand the scrutiny of law andthe contention of the petitioners that the impugned regulations areagainst law and without authority is not correct. 30. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that morethan 12,000 NET qualified candidates are waiting for employment inteaching, and the Government is not aware as to how many candidateswith qualification of SLET are waiting for employment. The UGC andvarious Governments prescribed qualifications from time to time andkeeping in mind the qualifications needed at that time appointmentsare made only prospective effect. Permitting the candidates who arenot having minimum qualifications to appear in interviews would meaninjustice to the candidates who possess qualifications that satisfythe revised rules. According to the learned Additional SolicitorGeneral, if the request of the petitioners are accepted, it wouldonly mean compromising on the quality of education and teaching ineducational institutions, which is primary concern of the UGC and theGovernment. 31. Lastly, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted thatthe contention of the writ petitioners that the impugned regulationsare unsustainable as they were issued upon the directions of thefirst respondent is untenable and unsustainable. Under Section 20 ofthe Act, the Central Government is empowered to give directions toUGC to frame appropriate regulations. The impugned regulations wereenacted by the second respondent pursuant to the directions issued bythe first respondent in its order dated 12.11.2008 upon therecommendations made by Prof.Mungekar Committee. Although the UGCrecommended that candidates who had already registered for M.Phil andcomplete the same upto 30.06.2009 be exempted from NET for UGteaching and that NET/SLET shall be compulsory for candidatescompleting their M.Phil on or after 01.07.2009, the Government inexercise of its power did not accept the said recommendations in itsorder dated 12.11.2008. According to the learned AdditionalSolicitor General, contrary to the instructions and directions ofthis respondent, the second respondent in its meeting held on12.08.2010 proposed to exempt certain candidates from the requirementof NET qualification for the purpose of appointment aslecturer/Asst.Professor. It is also not proper on the part of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners to contend that the second respondent had grantedrelaxation to candidates who do not possess NET/SELT qualifications,since this respondent had clarified all the questions and only afterclarifications, the second respondent framed and notified theimpugned regulations. 32. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that theprospective nature of amendments dated 11.07.2009 will apply toadvertisements issued for recruitment/appointment after that date. Itdoes not enure to those who have obtained M.Phil/Ph.D prior to thatdate. Those candidates who have obtained their M.Phil/Ph.D have tocomply with the amended regulations from 11.07.2009. On and from11.07.2009, only candidates who have qualified in NET/SLET areeligible to apply for teaching faculty in colleges,universities/deemed universities. Learned Additional SolicitorGeneral finally submitted that the impugned regulations areprospective in nature and the candidates have to satisfy thequalification prescribed in the recruitment process initiated after11.07.2009.33. In a nutshell, the entire argument advanced by the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellants is based on the doctrine oflegitimate expectation, which cannot be taken away or withdrawn bythe impugned regulation. According to the learned counsel theimpugned regulation is based on the direction issued by the firstrespondent/Central Government, which is unsustainable. However, theargument advanced by Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counselappearing for some of the appellants is that their case is not basedon legitimate expectation. Learned counsel mainly emphasized on thecut off date i.e., 31.12.1993, which is based on a rational basis,and therefore, the candidates who have completed their M.Phil Degreeon or before 31.12.1993 are exempted from NET/SLET examination andthey are eligible to be considered for appointment for the teachingposts. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the SupremeCourt in the case of University Grants Commission Vs. SadhanaChaudhary reported in JT 1996 (8) SC 234. 34. Before meeting the argument advanced by the learnedcounsels, we would like to discuss the relevant provisions of theUniversity Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act, 1956). The aforesaidAct was enacted by the Parliament to make provision for the co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities and toestablish a University Grants Commission. Section – 5 of the Actspeaks about the composition of the Commission which shall consist ofa Chairman, Vice Chairman and 10 other Members to be appointed by theCentral Government. The Chairman shall be from among the persons whoare not officers of the Central Government or of any StateGovernment. Whereas the other members shall be from the officials ofthe Central Government to represent that Government. Sections 6 to 11relate to the provisions with regard to filling up of the vacancies https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Commission, staff of the Commission and the procedures for theconduct of meetings of the Commission. Section 12 prescribes thepowers and functions of the Commission inter alia, which includesrecommendation to any University the measures necessary for theimprovement of University education and to advice the University onthe action to be taken for the purpose of implementing suchrecommendation. Section 20 of the Act is the relevant provision whichsays that on the discharge of its functions the Commission shall beguided by such directions on question of policy relating to nationalpurposes as may be given to it by the Central Government. Sub section(2) of Section 20 clearly provides that if any dispute arises betweenthe Central Government and the Commission as to whether a question isor is not a question of policy relating to national purposes, thedecision of the Central Government shall be final. For betterappreciation Section 20 of the Act is reproduced herein below: “20. (1) In the discharge of its functions under thisAct, the Commission shall be guided by such directions onquestions of policy relating to national purposes as may begiven to it by the Central Government. (2) If any dispute arises between the CentralGovernment and the Commission as to whether a question isor is not a question of policy relating to nationalpurposes, the decision of the Central Government shall befinal.” 35. Section 25 of the Act confers power to the CentralGovernment to make Rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. SubSection (3) of Section 25 further confers power to the CentralGovernment to make Rules and to give it retrospective effect from adate not earlier than the date of commencement of the Act. WhereasSection 26 confers to the Commission to make Regulations consistentwith the Act and the Rules made there under. By notifyingRegulations, the Commission may make provisions for regulating themeetings of the Commission specifying the terms and conditions ofservice of service of the employees appointed by the Commission andalso defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be requiredof any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of theUniversity. Similar to the power conferred to the Central Government,sub Section (3) of Section 26 confers power to the Commission to makeRegulations and to give retrospective effect not earlier than thedate of commencement of the Act. Section 26 of the Act reads asunder: “26. (1) The Commission (may by notification in theOfficial Gazette, make regulations) consistent with this Actand the rules made thereunder:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a)regulating the meetings of the Commission and theprocedure for conducting business thereat;(b)regulating the manner in which and the purposes forwhich persons may be associated with the Commissionunder Section 9;(c)specifying the terms and conditions of service of theemployees appointed by the Commission;(d)specifying the institutions or class of institutionswhich may be recognized by the Commission underClause (f) of sub-section 2; (e)defining the qualifications that should ordinarily berequired of any person to be appointed to theteaching staff of the University, having regard tothe branch of education in which he is expected togive instruction;(f)defining the minimum standards of instruction for thegrant of any degree by any University;(g)regulating the maintenance of standards and the co-ordination of work or facilities in the Universities;(h)regulating the establishment of institutions referredto in Clause (ccc) of Section 12 and other mattersrelating to such institutions. (i)specifying the matters in respect of which fees maybe charged, and scales of fees in accordance withwhich fees may be charged, by a college under sub-section (2) of section 12A;(j)specifying the manner in which an inquiry may beconducted under sub-section (4) of Section 12A;(2) No regulation shall be made under clause (a) orclause (b) or clause (c) or clause (h) or clause (i) orclause (j) of sub-section (1) except with the previousapproval of the Central Government.(3) The power to make regulations conferred by thissection except clause (i) and clause (j) of sub-section(1) shall include the power to give retrospective effectfrom a date not earlier than the date of commencement ofthis Act, to the regulations or any of them but noretrospective effect shall be given to any regulation soas to prejudicially affect the interests of any personto whom such regulation may be applicable.” 36. From a bare reading of the relevant provisions quoted hereinabove, it is manifestly clear that in the discharge of powerconferred under the Act the Commission shall be guided by thedirection mainly on question of policy relating to national purposesas may from time to time be given by the Central Government. It isalso clear that in case of any dispute between the Commission and theGovernment with regard to a question of policy relating to nationalpurpose the decision of the Central Government shall be final. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

37. In the light of the aforesaid provisions contained in theAct, we shall now examine as to whether the claim of the appellants,fully based on legitimate expectation, can be sustained in law, inthe facts and circumstances of the instant case. Further, whether thecandidates, who have completed Ph.D or M.Phil Degree on or before31.12.1993 shall be entitled to be exempted from the conditionimposed by the impugned regulation i.e., to clear NET/SLETexamination. As stated above, the appellants based their argument onthe ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of UniversityGrants Commission Vs. Sadhana Chaudhary reported in JT 1996 (8) SC234. 38. In the aforesaid decision, one of the question raised wasrelating to the grant of exemption from the provisions contained inUGC (Qualifications Required of a Person to be Appointed to theTeaching Staff of a University and Institutions Affiliated to it)Regulations, 1991 which required that for appointment on the post ofLecturer in Universities and Colleges a candidate should have clearedthe eligibility test conducted by UGC or CSIR or similar testaccredited by the UGC. In the said decision the Supreme Court alsoconsidering the validity of the Ordinance dated 08.12.1994promulgated by the Governor of Bihar requiring minimum qualificationfor appointment on the post of Lecturer and also the subsequentCircular issued by the Bihar State University Grants Commission tothat effect. It was contended by the appellants in that case that thepost of Lecturer should be filled up by only those persons who havecleared National Eligibility Test or its equivalent examination. 39. After discussing various regulations that were framed fromtime to time, the question that fell for consideration before theSupreme Court was with regard to the validity of the circular of theUGC dated 10th February, 1993 and 15th June, 1995 as well as thenotification dated 21st June, 1995 amending the 1991 Regulations. Inthe said decision the Supreme Court held that the choice of a date asa basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary evenif no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it isshown to be capricious or whimsical. Further the Supreme Court onthe question of validity of exemption regarding clearing eligibilitytest granted under the Circular dated 10th February, 1995 and 15thJune, 1993 held as under:- “22. We may now come to the validity of the exemptionfrom the requirement regarding clearing the eligibilitytest that has been granted under the Circulars datedFebruary 10, 1993 and June 15, 1995 and the notificationdated June 21, 1995. Shri. S.B.Sanyal, the learned SeniorCounsel appearing for the appellants in Civil Appealarising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27375 of 1995, has submittedthat having regard to the report of the National Commission https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on Teachers II and the report of the Mehrotra Committee,which form the basis for introducing this requirement bythe UGC in the 1991 Regulations, there is no rational basisfor granting exemption from the eligibility test tocandidates who has submitted Ph.D thesis or passed theM.Phil examination by December 31, 1993. We find no meritin this contention. Prior to the making of the 1991Regulations there was no statutory requirement regardingclearing the eligibility test for the purpose ofappointment on the post of Lecturer. Such a requirement wasintroduced for the first time by the 1991 Regulations. Atthe time when the 1991 Regulations were made the provisionscontained in the 1982 Regulations had given rise to alegitimate expectation that a person having a Ph.D. orM.Phil degree and having good academic record as prescribedunder the 1982 Regulations would be eligible forappointment on the post of Lecturer without anything more.While introducing the requirement of clearing theeligibility test in the 1991 Regulations, the UGC did notintend to deprive the persons who had obtained M.Phildegree or Ph.D degree prior to the making of the 1991Regulations of their legitimate expectation in the matterof appointment on the post of Lecturer in universities orcolleges. It was also felt that the said requirement in the1991 Regulations should not operate to the prejudice ofpersons who, having regard to the qualifications prescribedin the 1982 Regulations, had registered for the Ph.D.degree or had joined study for M.Phil degree course priorto making of the 1991 Regulations and, therefore, provisionwas made for granting exemption to such candidates with thecondition that they should have passed M.Phil examinationor should have submitted Ph.D. thesis by a particular date.In so far as the date of submission of Ph.D. thesis isconcerned, the said date, i.e., December 31,1993 hasremained unchanged in the Circulars dated February 10, 1993and June 15, 1993 and the notification dated June 21, 1995.For M.Phil degree the date was, however, changed from March31, 1991 to December 31, 1992 by Circular dated June 15,1993 and from December 31, 1992 to December 31, 1993 bynotification dated June 21, 1995. The amendment in the 1991Regulations that has been made by the notification datedJune 21, 1995, in substance, postpones the date ofapplicability of the requirement regarding clearing theeligibility test in the 1991 Regulations till December 31,1993 in respect of candidates who had joined the M.Philcourse or registered for Ph.D. degree. Such candidatesconstitute a distinct class who could be treated separatelyin so far as the requirement of clearing the eligibilitytest was concerned. Such a classification of the candidatesfor the purpose of applicability of the requirement of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ clearing the eligibility test has a rational basis whichhas a reasonable nexus with the object sought to beachieved by the 1991 Regulations. We are, therefore, unableto hold that the exemption that has been granted by theamendment introduced in the 1991 Regulations bynotifications dated June 21, 1995 is violative of the rightto equality guaranteed under Article 14 of theConstitution.”The Court further observed – “24. This grant of exemption was in accord with theCirculars dated February 10, 1993 and June 15, 1993 thathad been issued by the UGC. As notified earlier BiharEligibility Test that was conducted by Bihar StateUniversity Service Commission on June 18, 1995 has beenaccredited by the UGC on February 12, 1996 and furthertests to be held in the period 1995-1997 have also beenaccredited with certain recommendations. The grant ofexemption from the eligibility test in the Corrigendum,therefore, does not run contrary to the requirementprescribed by the UGC in the 1991 Regulations read withCirculars dated February 10, 1993 and June 15, 1993 whichwere applicable at that time. The question regardingvalidity of the two Ordinances and the legislativeenactments replacing them is, therefore, left open.” 40. In the instant case, as noticed above, in order to improvethe quality of education, the first respondent namely., the CentralGovernment set up a Review Committee under the Chairmanship ofBhalchandra Mungekar and other Experts to review the Scheme ofNational Eligibility Test. In its final report the Committee took aview that the NET/SLET test should be retained as a compulsoryrequirement for appointment of Lecturers at Under Graduate and PostGraduate levels irrespective of candidates possessing the degree ofM.Phil or Ph.D. The report of the Mungekar Committee was consideredby the UGC in its meeting held on 21.07.2008 and resolved thatNET/SLET or Ph.D. shall remain the minimum eligibility condition forrecruitment of Lecturers in universities, colleges and otherinstitutions of higher learning. The government had also consideredthe report of the Mungekar Committee in the light of therecommendation of the UGC and issued a direction on 12.11.2008 underSection 20 of the UGC Act giving instructions to prepare appropriateregulations keeping in mind the national purpose of maintaining thestandard of higher education prescribing that NET/SLET shall becompulsory for all persons to be appointed to teaching post ofLecturer or Assistant Professor in universities and otherinstitutions imparting higher education. It was also suggested thatonly persons who posses the degree of Ph.D. after having beenenrolled/admitted to a program notified by the UGC that too after it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has fully satisfied itself on the basis of the expert opinion thatsuch Ph.D. degree has been obtained in conformity with the procedureand standards prescribed by it only could be exempted. The governmentin exercise of the power under the Act also directed that theCommission shall not give any blanket or general exemption fromNET/SLET to any university unless Ph.D. awarded by a university or aninstitution needs the same level of rigor in terms of standards andquality as laid down by the UGC for each discipline. In compliancewith the above policy directive of the Central Government dated12.11.2008 the UGC notified regulations by 3rd Amendment called 3rdAmendment Regulations, 2009, which was notified on 11.07.2009, whichis impugned herein. It was categorically specified that qualifyingNET/SLET would be the minimum eligibility condition for recruitmentand appointment of Lecturers in universities and colleges withexemption to be granted only to persons who have obtained Ph.D.degree in accordance with the standard and rigor prescribed under theUGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement ofTeachers in Universities and Colleges) Regulations, 2009. 41. It is, therefore, evidently clear that the directive of theCentral Government dated 12.11.2008 was to ensure the nationalpurpose inasmuch as raising the standards of higher educationreflected through the quality of teaching should be approachedthrough induction of talent into the academic profession at theinitial stage. However, contrary to instructions and directions ofthe Central Government the Commission in its meeting held on12.3.2010 proposed to exempt certain candidates from the requirementof NET qualification for the purpose of appointment ofLecturers/Assistant Professors and sent to the Government forapproval, but the same was not approved by the Central Government. 42. After giving full consideration on the regulations time totime framed by the Commission after 1991 and the amendment broughttherein, the question arises as to whether the candidates who haveobtained M.Phil degree on or before 31.12.1993 are still entitled toclaim exemption on the ground of legitimate expectation and also onthe ground that such candidates were held to be treated as adifferent class as held by the Supreme Court while deciding thevalidity of Regulations of 1991. 43. “Legitimate” in legal parlance means that which is lawfullylegal, recognized by law or according to law. The word “expectation”means the act or the instance of expecting or looking forwardsomething, expects or hoped for probability of an event. Expectationis often related to one’s prospect. 44. The concept of “legitimate expectation” has been elaboratelydiscussed by the Supreme Court referring to various principles andthe foreign decisions in the case of Union of India Vs. Hindustan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Development Corporation reported in (1993) 3 SCC 499. Some of theparagraphs are worth to be quoted herein below. Paragraph 30 of the said judgment reads as under:-“In some cases a question arose whether theconcept of legitimate expectation is an impactonly on the procedure or whether it also can havea substantive impact and if so to what extent.Attorney General for New South Wales v. Quin(1990) 64 Aust LJR 327) is a case from Australiain which this aspect is dealt with. In that casethe Local Courts Act abolished Courts of PettySessions and replaced them by Local Courts.Section 12 of the Act empowered the Governor toappoint any qualified person to be a Magistratein the new court system. Mr Quin, who had been aStipendiary Magistrate in charge of a Court ofPetty Sessions under the old system, applied for,but was refused, an appointment under the newsystem. That was challenged. The challenge wasupheld by the appellate court on the ground thatthe selection committee had taken into account anadverse report on him without giving a notice tohim of the contents of the same. In the appeal bythe Attorney-General against that order beforethe High Court, it was argued on behalf of MrQuin that he had a legitimate expectation that hewould be treated in the same way as his formercolleagues considering his application on its ownmerits. Coming to the nature of the substantiveimpact of the doctrine, Brennan, J. observed thatthe doctrine of legitimate expectations ought notto “unlock the gate which shuts the court out ofreview on the merits”, and that the courts shouldnot trespass “into the forbidden field of themerits“ by striking down administrative acts ordecisions which failed to fulfil theexpectations. In the same case Mason, C.J. was ofthe view that if substantive protection is to beaccorded to legitimate expectations that wouldencounter the objection of entailing “curialinterference with administrative decisions on themerits by precluding the decision-maker fromultimately making the decision which he or sheconsiders most appropriate in the circumstances.”Thus, the principle has been initiated in the said decision, whereinit was held as follows: -(para 35 page 549) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “…..If a denial of legitimate expectation in agiven case amounts to denial of right guaranteedor is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair orbiased, gross abuse of power or violation ofprinciples of natural justice, the same can bequestioned on the well-known grounds attractingArticle 14 but a claim based on mere legitimateexpectation without anything more cannot ipsofacto give a right to invoke these principles. Itcan be one of the grounds to consider but thecourt must lift the veil and see whether thedecision is violative of these principleswarranting interference. It depends very much onthe facts and the recognised general principlesof administrative law applicable to such factsand the concept of legitimate expectation whichis the latest recruit to a long list of conceptsfashioned by the courts for the review ofadministrative action, must be restricted to thegeneral legal limitations applicable and bindingthe manner of the future exercise ofadministrative power in a particular case. Itfollows that the concept of legitimateexpectation is “not the key which unlocks thetreasury of natural justice and it ought not tounlock the gates which shuts the court out ofreview on the merits”, particularly when theelement of speculation and uncertainty isinherent in that very concept. As cautioned inAttorney General for New South Wales case (199064 Aust LJR 327) the courts should restrainthemselves and restrict such claims duly to thelegal limitations. It is a well-meant caution.Otherwise a resourceful litigant having vestedinterests in contracts, licences etc. cansuccessfully indulge in getting welfareactivities mandated by directive principlesthwarted to further his own interests. Thecaution, particularly in the changing scenario,becomes all the more important.”45. In Punjab Communications v. Union of India reported in 1999(4) SCC 727, the principle was again considered in paragraph-33 ofthe judgment, wherein it was held as follows:- (page 744)“This Court considered the question elaboratelyin Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn.(1993 (3) SCC 499). There tenders were called forsupply of cast-steel bogies to the Railways. Thethree big manufacturers quoted less than the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ smaller manufacturers. The Railways then adopteda dual-pricing policy giving counter-offers at alower rate to the bigger manufacturers whoallegedly formed a cartel and a higher offer toothers so as to enable a healthy competition.This was challenged by the three bigmanufacturers complaining that they were alsoentitled to a higher rate and a large number ofbogies. This Court held that the change into adual-pricing policy was not vitiated and wasbased on “rational and reasonable” grounds. Inthat context, this Court referred to Halsbury’sLaws of England [4th Edn. Vol. 1(1) 151]. ThisCourt referred to Schmidt v. Secy. of State forHome Affairs (1969 (1) ALL ER 904, CA) whichrequired an opportunity to be given to an alienif the leave given to him to stay in the U.K. wasbeing revoked before expiry of the time and toAttorney General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu(1983 (2) AC 629, which required the Governmentof Hong Kong to honour its undertaking to treateach deportation case on its merits; this Courtalso referred to Council of Civil Service Unionsv. Minister for the Civil Service (1985 AC 374)which related to alteration of conditionsrelating to membership of trade unions and theneed to consult the unions in case of change ofpolicy as was the practice in the past, and toFood Corpn. of India case (1993 (1) SCC 71) andNavjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society case(1992 (4) SCC 477). This Court then observed thatlegitimate expectation was not the same thing asanticipation. It was also different from a merewish or desire or hope. Nor was it a claim ordemand based on a right. A mere disappointmentwould not give rise to legal consequences. ThisCourt held as follows: (SCC p.540, para 28)“The legitimacy of an expectation can beinferred only if it is founded on the sanction oflaw or custom or an established procedurefollowed in regular and natural sequence. ...Such expectation should be justifiably legitimateand protectable.”46. In the case of Dr.Chanchal Goyal (Mrs.) vs. State ofRajasthan reported in 2003 (3) SCC 485, the principle of Doctrine ofLegitimate Expectation was elaborately discussed and their Lordshipsheld as follows: - (paras 14 & 16, pages 496-497) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “14. The principle of a substantive legitimateexpectation, that is, expectation of a favourabledecision of one kind or another, has beenaccepted as part of the English law in severalcases. (De Smith: Administrative Law, 5th Edn.,para 13.030. See also Wade and Forsyth:Administrative Law, 7th Edn., pp. ..418-19.)According to Wade, the doctrine of substantivelegitimate expectation has been “rejected” by theHigh Court of Australia in Attorney General forN.S.W. v. Quin 16 (but see Teon case referred tolater) and that the principle was also rejectedin Canada in reference Canada Assistance Plan, Re(1991 (83) DLR (4th) 297) but favoured in Irelandin Canon v. Minister for the Marine (1991 (1) IR82. The European Court goes further and permitsthe court to apply proportionality and go intothe balancing of legitimate expectation and thepublic interest.16. To a like effect are the observations ofLord Diplock in Hughes v. Deptt. of Health andSocial Security (1985 AC 776 AC at p. 788):“Administrative policies may change withchanging circumstances, including changes in thepolitical complexion of Governments. The libertyto make such changes is something that isinherent in our constitutional form ofgovernment.”[See in this connection Mr Detan’s article “WhyAdministrators Should be Bound by their Policies”(Vol. 17), 1997, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies,p.23]. But today the rigidity of the abovedecisions appears to have been somewhat relaxedto the extent of application of the Wednesburyrule, whenever there is a change in policy and weshall be referring to those aspects presently.”47. In the case of Union of India vs. International Trading Co.reported in 2003 (3) SCC 437, it has been held as follows: -(paragraphs 21, 22 & 23, pages 446-447)“21. As observed in Attorney General for NewSouthwales v. Quin (1990 (64) Aus LJR 327 tostrike the exercise of administrative powersolely on the ground of avoiding thedisappointment of the legitimate expectations ofan individual would be to) set the courts adrifton a featureless sea of pragmatism. Moreover, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ negotiation of a legitimate expectation (fallingshort of a legal right) is too nebulous to form abasis for invalidating the exercise of a powerwhen its exercise otherwise accords with law. Ifa denial of legitimate expectation in a givencase amounts to denial of right guaranteed or isarbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased grossabuse of power or violation of principles ofnatural justice, the same can be questioned onthe well-known grounds attracting Article 14 buta claim based on mere legitimate expectationwithout anything more cannot ipso facto give aright to invoke these principles. It can be oneof the grounds to consider, but the court mustlift the veil and see whether the decision isviolative of these principles warrantinginterference. It depends very much on the factsand the recognized general principles ofadministrative law applicable to such facts andthe concept of legitimate expectation which isthe latest recruit to a long list of conceptsfashioned by the courts for the review ofadministrative action must be restricted to thegeneral legal limitations applicable and bindingthe manner of the future exercise ofadministrative power in a particular case. Itfollows that the concept of legitimateexpectation is “not the key which unlocks thetreasure of natural justice and it ought not tounlock the gates which shuts the court out ofreview on the merits”, particularly, when theelement of speculation and uncertainty isinherent in that very concept. As cautioned inAttorney General for New Southwales case (supra)the court should restrain themselves and respectsuch claims duly to the legal limitations. It isa well-meant caution. Otherwise, a resourcefullitigant having vested interest in contract,licenses, etc. can successfully indulge ingetting welfare activities mandated by directingprinciples thwarted to further his own interest.The caution, particularly in the changingscenario becomes all the more important.22. If the State acts within the bounds ofreasonableness, it would be legitimate to takeinto consideration the national priorities andadopt trade policies. As noted above, theultimate test is whether on the touchstone ofreasonableness the policy decision comes outunscathed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23. Reasonableness of restriction is to bedetermined in an objective manner and from thestandpoint of interests of the general public andnot from the standpoint of the interests ofpersons upon whom the restrictions have beenimposed or upon abstract consideration. Arestriction cannot be said to be unreasonablemerely because in a given case, it operatesharshly. In determining whether there is anyunfairness involved; the nature of the rightalleged to have been infringed, the underlyingpurpose of the restriction imposed, the extentand urgency of the evil sought to be remediedthereby, the disproportion of the imposition, theprevailing condition at the relevant time, enterinto judicial verdict. The reasonableness of thelegitimate expectation has to be determined withrespect to the circumstances relating to thetrade or business in question. Canalisation of aparticular business in favour of even a specifiedindividual is reasonable where the interests ofthe country are concerned or where the businessaffects the economy of the country. (See ParbhaniTransport Coop. Society Ltd. v. RegionalTransport Authority (AIR 1960 SC 801, ShreeMeenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1974 (1)SCC 468,, Hari Chand Sarda v. Mizo DistrictCouncil (AIR 1967 SC 829, and Krishnan Kakkanthv. Govt. of Kerala (1997 (9) SCC 495)”48. In the case of Sethi Auto Service Station vs DDA reported in2009 (1) SCC 180, it has been held as follows: - (paras 32, 33, 38 &39, pages 190-193)“32. An examination of the aforenoted fewdecisions shows that the golden thread runningthrough all these decisions is that a case forapplicability of the doctrine of legitimateexpectation, now accepted in the subjective senseas part of our legal jurisprudence, arises whenan administrative body by reason of arepresentation or by past practice or conductaroused an expectation which it would be withinits powers to fulfil unless some overridingpublic interest comes in the way. However, aperson who bases his claim on the doctrine oflegitimate expectation, in the first instance,has to satisfy that he has relied on the saidrepresentation and the denial of that expectation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has worked to his detriment. The Court couldinterfere only if the decision taken by theauthority was found to be arbitrary, unreasonableor in gross abuse of power or in violation ofprinciples of natural justice and not taken inpublic interest. But a claim based on merelegitimate expectation without anything morecannot ipso facto give a right to invoke theseprinciples.33. It is well settled that the concept oflegitimate expectation has no role to play wherethe State action is as a public policy or in thepublic interest unless the action taken amountsto an abuse of power. The court must not usurpthe discretion of the public authority which isempowered to take the decisions under law and thecourt is expected to apply an objective standardwhich leaves to the deciding authority the fullrange of choice which the legislature is presumedto have intended. Even in a case where thedecision is left entirely to the discretion ofthe deciding authority without any such legalbounds and if the decision is taken fairly andobjectively, the court will not interfere on theground of procedural fairness to a person whoseinterest based on legitimate expectation might beaffected. Therefore, a legitimate expectation canat the most be one of the grounds which may giverise to judicial review but the granting ofrelief is very much limited. (Vide HindustanDevelopment Corpn. (1993 (3) SCC 499)38. Having bestowed our anxious consideration tothe facts in hand, in our judgment, the doctrineof legitimate expectation, as explained above, isnot attracted in the instant case. It is manifestthat even under the 1999 policy, on which theentire edifice of the appellants’ substantiveexpectation of getting alternative land forresitement is built does not cast any obligationupon DDA to relocate the petrol pumps. The saidpolicy merely laid down a criterion forrelocation and not a mandate that under the givencircumstances DDA was obliged to provide land forthe said purpose. Therefore, at best theappellants had an expectation of being consideredfor resitement. Their cases were duly considered,favourable recommendations were also made but bythe time the final decision-making authority https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ considered the matter, the policy underwent achange and the cases of the appellants did notmeet the new criteria for allotment laid down inthe new policy.39. We are convinced that apart from the factthat there is no challenge to the new policy,which seems to have been conceived in publicinterest in the light of the changed economicscenario and liberalised regime of permittingprivate companies to set up petrol outlets, thedecision of DDA in declining to allot land forresitement of petrol pumps, a matter of largesse,cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonablewarranting interference. Moreover, with thechange in policy, any direction in favour of theappellants in this regard would militate againstthe new policy of 2003. In our opinion,therefore, the principle of legitimateexpectation has no application to the facts athand.”49. In the light of the principles laid down by the SupremeCourt, we have no hesitation in holding that the principles ofLegitimate Expectation will have no application to the facts andcircumstances of the present case. As noticed above, the Governmentof India, Ministry of Human Resources felt the need to introduce NETas compulsory for the purpose of appointment of teaching post inorder to upgrade the standard of teaching. For that purpose, ExpertCommittees were constituted consisting of eminent experts andacademicians, who recommended that NET/SLET should be retained ascompulsory requirement for appointment of lecturers irrespective ofthe candidates possessing degree in M.Phil or Ph.D. After consideringthe report of Prof.Mungekar Committee, the University GrantsCommission was directed to frame regulations to serve the nationalpurpose of maintaining standards of higher education. But, theUniversity Grants Commission, without considering the object andpurpose of raising the standard of education, and without consideringthe global scenario, although framed regulations, but, tried to givecertain relaxation to the candidates for appearing in NET/SLETexamination. In our view, therefore, the Central Government hasrightly refused to approve the decision of the University GrantsCommission. Hence, the impugned regulation and the decision of theCentral Government cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be held tobe illegal, arbitrary or whimsical, rather the decision is rationaland based on public interest and also national policy to upgrade thestandards of education in the country. 50. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in theseappeals, which are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst.Registrar Gln/sm/pvToTo1. The Chairman, University Grants Commission, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 022.2. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 600 006 3. The Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi.4. The Registrar, Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore – 641 046.5. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education (F2) Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 9.6. The Secretary to Govt.of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.7. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. The Director of Collegiate Education, EVK Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.9. The Secretary, State Level Eligibility Test (SLET), For Lectureship, Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore. 10. The Registrar, Anna University, University Buildings, Chennai – 600 025.1 cc to Mr.M.Suresh Viswanath, Advocate, Sr.No.879691 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.870871 cc to M/s.C.Uma, Advocate, Sr.No.871442 cc to Mr.V.Sanjeevi, Advocate, Sr.No.871462 cc to Mr.R.Subramani, Advocate, Sr.No.871761 cc to Mr.P.Chandrasekaran, Advocate, Sr.No.872071 cc to Mr.K.Ravindranath, Advocate, Sr.No.872461 cc to M/s.Jothivani, Advocate, Sr.No.873011 cc to M/s.Row & Reddy, Advocate, Sr.No.875302 cc to Mr.P.R.Gopinathan, Advocate, Sr.No.87543 Judgment in W.A.No.893/2010 etc. batchRL {CO}TP/23.12.2010.