C.S.R. Linga Reddy v. The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development

pet it ioner has challenged t heir appoint m ent on t he following grounds: ( i) Respondent no. 5 had not qualified Nat ional Eligibility Test ( NET) , yet he was appoint ed as Assist ant Professor, Jyot irvigyan & Vedic Karm kand, even t hough his Ph.D. degree was not as per Universit y Grant s Com m ission ( Minim um St andards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./ Ph.D. Degree) , Regulat ions 2009; ( ii) Ph.D. degree of respondent no. 5 was not awarded in regular m ode, as he was serving as part- t im e t eacher in Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya during t he period of Ph.D.; ( iii) Respondent no. 6 alt hough had qualified Nat ional Eligibility Test , however, his Ph.D. degree is not as per Universit y Grant s Com m ission ( Minim um St andards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) , Regulat ions 2009.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for t he Universit y 2 subm it s t hat challenge t o t he select ion appoint m ent of respondent no. 5 and 6 t hrown by t he pet it ioner is wit hout any subst ance. He subm it s t hat respondent no. 5 and 6 were appoint ed on t he recom m endat ion of a duly const it ut ed select ion com m it t ee consist ing of subj ect expert s and t he assessm ent m ade by select ion com m it t ee is not open t o j udicial review. He furt her subm it s t hat select ion was m ade in a fair and t ransparent m anner and t here is no allegat ion of nepot ism or favorit ism , in t he writ pet it ion, against any Mem ber of select ion com m it t ee.

4. As regards eligibilit y of respondent no. 5 for his appoint m ent based on his Ph.D. degree, learned Counsel for t he Universit y subm it s t hat respondent no. 5 was awarded Ph.D. degree by Sam puranand Sanskrit Universit y, Varanasi and t he com pet ent aut horit y in t he said universit y has issued a cert ificat e t hat t he Ph.D. degree awarded t o respondent no. 5 fulfils all five crit eria indicat ed in UGC ( Minim um qualificat ions for appoint m ent of t eachers and ot her academ ic st aff in Universit ies and Colleges and m easures m aint enance of st andards in higher educat ion) ( 4 t h Am endm ent ) Regulat ions, 2016, not ified on 11.7.2016. Cert ificat e issued by Sam puranand Sanskrit Universit y in favour of respondent no. 5 is enclosed wit h t he count er affidavit filed by respondent no. 5.

5. Regulat ion 3 t he 4 t h Am endm ent Regulat ions 2016, not ified on 11.7.2016, is ext ract ed below: " 3. The proviso prescribed under Regulat ion 3.3.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.2.2, 4.4.2.3, 4.5.3 and 4.6.3 in t he 3 Grant s Com m ission ( Minim um Universit y qualificat ions for appoint m ent of t eachers and ot her academ ic st aff in Universit ies and Colleges and ot her m easures for t he m aint enance of st andards in higher ( 3t h Am endm ent ) Regulat ions, 2016 educat ion) regarding exem pt ion t o t he candidat es regist ered for Ph.D. program m e prior t o July 11, 2009 shall st and am ended and be read as under: - " Provided furt her, t he award of degree t o candidat es regist ered for t he M.Phil/ Ph.D program m e prior t o July 11, 2009, shall be governed by t he provisions of t he t hen exist ing Ordinances/ Bylaws/ Regulat ions of t he I nst it ut ions aw arding t he degree and t he Ph.D. candidat es shall be exem pt ed from t he requirem ent of NET/ SLET/ SET for recruit m ent and appoint m ent of Assist ant Professor or equivalent posit ions t he Universit ies/ Colleges/ I nst it ut ions fulfillm ent of t he following condit ions: - subj ect t o a) Ph.D. degree of t he candidat e awarded in regular m ode only; b) Evaluat ion of t he Ph.D. t hesis by at least t wo ext ernal exam iners; c) Open Ph.D. viva voce of t he candidat e had been conduct ed; d) Candidat e has published t wo research papers from his/ her Ph.D. work out of w hich at least one m ust be in a referred j ournal; e) Candidat e has m ade at least t wo present at ions in conferences/ sem inars, based on his/ her Ph.D. work. ( a) t o ( e) as above are t o be cert ified by t he Vice- Chancellor / Pro- Vice- Chancellor / Dean ( Academ ic Affairs) / Dean ( Universit y inst ruct ions) ."

6. Aforesaid provision cont em plat es issuance of a cert ificat e by t he com pet ent aut horit y t he Universit y which awarded Ph.D. degree and t he com pet ent aut horit y in Sam puranand Sanskrit Universit y has issued such cert ificat e favour of respondent no. 5 t hat it m eet s all five crit eria laid down in UGC Regulat ions, 2016, t herefore t he cont ent ion t hat Ph.D. degree awarded t o respondent no. 5 was not in regular m ode cannot be accept ed. Since UGC 4 Regulat ions, 2016 t reat s such cert ificat e issued by t he Universit y t o be final, t herefore, t his Court cannot go int o t he correct ness of t he cert ificat e, especially when t here is no challenge t o t he correct ness of t he cert ificat e.

7. The advert isem ent whereby select ion process, in quest ion, was init iat ed is enclosed as Annexure- 3 t o t he writ pet it ion. Clause 4 of t he General Condit ions I nform at ion for Applicant s, m ent ioned in t he advert isem ent , is ext ract ed below: - t o from NET/ SET/ SLET m ust from com pet ent aut horit y t hem “ 4. The candidat es holding Ph.D. degree and require produce exem pt ion cert ificat e t hat Ph.D. degree awarded in com pliance wit h Universit y Grant s Com m ission ( Minim um St andards for Award of Ph.D. Degree) , and Procedure Regulat ions 2009. Furt her, t he award of degrees t o candidat es regist ered for t he M.Phil/ Ph.D program m e prior t o July 11, 2009, shall be governed by t he provisions of t he t hen exist ing Ordinances/ By laws/ Regulat ions of t he I nst it ut ion awarding t he degrees and t he Ph.D candidat es shall be exem pt ed from t he requirem ent of t he m inim um eligibilit y condit ion of " NET/ SLET/ SET for recruit m ent and appoint m ent of Assist ant Professor or equivalent posit ions Universit ies / Colleges / I nst it ut ions subj ect t o t he fulfillm ent of t he condit ions prescribed by t he UGC as per3rd Am endm ent , Regulat ions 2016 of UGC ( Minim um qualificat ions for appoint m ent of t eachers and ot her academ ic st aff in Universit ies and Colleges and m easures for t he m aint enance of st andards in higher educat ion) and am endm ent s t im e t o t im e.” t herein

8. A careful perusal of Clause 4 of t he General Condit ions reveals t hat NET/ SLET/ SET is one of t he essent ial qualificat ions of t he eligibilit y, however t he said essent ial qualificat ion is relaxable in favour of t he candidat es holding Ph.D. degree, if t hey are able t o produce cert ificat e from t he com pet ent aut hority t hat Ph.D. degree awarded t o t hem is in com pliance wit h t he 5 Universit y Grant s Com m ission ( Minim um St andards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./ Ph.D. Degree) Regulat ions, 2009. I n Clause 4 of t he advert isem ent , reference is also m ade t o UGC ( Minim um qualificat ions for appoint m ent of t eachers and ot her academ ic st aff in Universit ies and Colleges and m easures m aint enance of st andards in higher educat ion) Regulat ions, 2016.

9. Since respondent no. 5 was issued a cert ificat e by com pet ent aut horit y in Sam puranand Sanskrit Universit y t hat his Ph.D. degree m eet s all five crit eria indicat ed in UGC Regulat ions, 2016, t herefore, challenge t o t he eligibilit y of respondent no. 5 for t he post of Assist ant Professor is wit hout any subst ance.

10. Pet it ioner has challenged select ion and appoint m ent of respondent no. 5 and 6 on t he ground t hat Ph.D. degree possessed by t hem is not as per Universit y Grant s Com m ission ( Minim um St andards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./ Ph.D. Degree) Regulat ions, 2009, t herefore t hey are ineligible for appoint m ent as Assist ant Professor. This aspect was considered and discussed by t hree-Judges Bench of Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of Universit y of Kerala and ot hers v. Marlin J.N. and anot her, report ed in ( 2022) 9 SCC 389, in which it was held t hat UGC Regulat ions of 2016 are applicable ret rospect ively and candidat es wit h Ph.D. degree, which is not as per UGC Regulat ions, 2009, cannot be t reat ed as ineligible. Relevant ext ract of t he said j udgm ent is ext ract ed below: - 6 law and t he ext ant “ 9. Befor e t his Court , it was argued on behalf of Dr Jayakum ar as well as t he Universit y t hat t he form er 's appoint m ent was in accordance wit h I t was em phasised t hat t he Universit y adopt ed t he 2009/ 10 UGCR only wit h effect from 23- 11- 2013. I n t hese circum st ances, when t he advert isem ent was published, as also when Dr Jayakum ar was appoint ed in August 2012, he was fully qualified and ent it led t o be appoint ed as Lect ur er . I t was furt her cont ended t hat prior t o Dr Jayakum ar's appoint m ent , it s Resolut ion dat ed 12- 8- 2010 passed in it s 471st m eet ing, clarified t hat 2009 PhD Regulat ions and 2009 UGCR w er e pr ospect iv e in nat ure, and not r et r ospect iv e: t he UGC had, regulat ions. t hr ough “ [ A] ll candidat es who had eit her obt ained PhD on or befor e 31- 12- 2009 and such candidat es who had regist er ed t hem selv es for PhD degr ee on or befor e 31- 12- 2009 were exem pt fr om t he r equir em ent of NET.”

10. I t was argued on behalf of t he appellant t hat t he fourt h am endm ent placed t he m at t er beyond any doubt because it render ed eligible candidat es who had acquir ed t heir PhD degr ee befor e 11- 7- 2009. I n t his r egard, great em phasis was placed on t he following: Com m ission ( Minim um Qualificat ions “ The pr oviso pr escribed under Regulat ions 3.3.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.2.2, 4.4.2.3, 4.5.3 and 4.6.3 in t he Universit y Grant s Appoint m ent of Teacher s and Ot her Academ ic St aff in Universit ies and Colleges and Ot her Measures for t he in Higher Educat ion) ( 3t h Maint enance of St andards Am endm ent ) Regulat ions, 2016 r egarding ex em pt ion t o t he candidat es r egist ered for PhD pr ogram m e prior t o 11- 7- 2009 shall st and am ended and be r ead as under: furt her, t he award of degr ee Provided t o candidat es regist er ed for t he MPhil/ PhD program m e prior t o 11- 7- 2009, shall be governed by t he provisions of t he t hen t he Ordinances/ bye- laws/ regulat ions exist ing inst it ut ions awarding t he degr ee and t he PhD candidat es shall be ex em pt ed from t he requir em ent of NET/ SLET/ SET for r ecruit m ent and appoint m ent of Assist ant Professor or equivalent posit ions in Universit ies/ Colleges/ I nst it ut ions subj ect t o t he fulfilm ent of t he following condit ions: ( a) PhD degree of t he candidat e awarded in r egular m ode only; ( b) Evaluat ion of t he PhD t hesis by at least t wo ext ernal exam iners; ( c) Open PhD viva v oce of t he candidat e had been conduct ed; ( d) Candidat e has published t w o research paper s fr om his/ her PhD work out of which at least one m ust be in a refereed j ournal; ( e) Candidat e has m ade at least t w o pr esent at ions in confer ences/ sem inar s, based on his/ her PhD w ork. ( a) t o ( e) as abov e are t o be cert ified by t he Vice- Chancellor/ Pr o ( Academ ic Affairs) / Dean ( Univer sit y inst ruct ions) .” [ Regn. 3, 2016 UGCR.] Vice- Chancellor/ Dean

11. I t was argued on behalf of Dr Merlin t hat Dr Jayakum ar was ineligible and could not have been grant ed ex em pt ion fr om t he 7 t he prevalent NET qualificat ion which was essent ial under 2009/ 10 UGCR. I t was highlight ed t hat t he 2009 PhD Regulat ions usher ed a new rigorous academ ic fram ework for t he award of PhD degr ees. I f one kept t his in m ind, t he st ipulat ion t hat only t hose candidat es who acquired t heir PhD in t er m s of t he 2009/ 10 UGCR w ere eligible for ex em pt ion fr om t aking t he NET — such a st ipulat ion was absolut e. I n ot her words, candidat es who had acquired t heir PhD in t erm s of t he 2009/ 10 UGCR wer e t he only class of candidat es who were exem pt from hav ing t o qualify t he NET. Since Dr Jayakum ar did not fall in t hat class, but had obt ained his PhD m uch earlier, t he ex em pt ion did not apply t o him . To be eligible, he had t o have t aken t he NET. I t was subm it t ed t hat Dr Merlin on t he ot her hand, w as bet t er qualified because she had passed t he NET in 1998 and had lat er obt ained a PhD. Furt her , she was w orking in t he Univ er sit y of Kerala as a cont ract ual t he Universit y pr oceeded t o appoint Dr Jay akum ar and ignored her t hem , she alone was candidat ure. As bet ween qualified, whereas Dr Jayakum ar was not . I t was subm it t ed t hat t he appellant Dr Jayakum ar could not r ely upon t he resolut ion of UGC t ak en in it s 471st m eet ing. t eacher since 2001. Despit e fact ors, t w o of t hese t he t his Court t he decision of

12. The learned Senior Counsel for Dr Merlin urged t hat t he UGC's r esolut ion was cont rar y t o t he expr ess t erm s of t he 2010 UGCR. This becam e t he subj ect - m at t er of cont rov er sy since t he Cent ral Governm ent had expressed it s disagreem ent wit h t he resolut ion, in a Let t er dat ed 23- 11- 2010. This cont rov ersy was discussed in P. Suseela [ P. Suseela v. UGC, ( 2015) 8 SCC 129 : ( 2015) 2 SCC ( L&S) 633 : 7 SCEC 333] . The learned counsel relied upon t hat j udgm ent t o urge t hat t his Court had cat egorically ruled t hat UGC's resolut ion t aken in it s 471st m eet ing could not pr ov ide any relief t o candidat es sim ilarly sit uat ed as Dr Jayakum ar as it was at odds wit h t he Cent ral Gov er nm ent 's dir ect iv es which had t o prevail in t erm s of t he par ent enact m ent . [ Universit y Grant s Com m ission Act , 1956 ( hereinaft er “ t he UGC Act ” ) .] The learned Senior Counsel also r elied upon t he subsequent j udgm ent in Manoj Sharm a [ St at e of M.P. v. Manoj Sharm a, ( 2018) 3 SCC 329 : ( 2018) 1 SCC ( L&S) 585] . I t was furt her argued t hat t he 2016 UGCR were expr essly prospect ive in nat ure — t hose possessing PhD qualificat ions prior t o t he cut - off dat e of 11- 7- 2009 but seeking t o benefit fr om t he 2016 UGCR had t o fulfil specific condit ions ( as m ent ioned abov e) which were absent hit hert o. I n t he sam e v ein, it was highlight ed t hat t hough UGC has t he pow er t o fram e r egulat ions wit h ret rospect ive effect [ by Sect ion 26( 3) of t he UGC Act ] t he 2016 UGCR is expr essly prospect iv e and t hat t his Court should not , by int erpret at ion, giv e it r et r ospect iv e effect , as t hese circum st ances, t her e could be no quest ion of Dr Jayakum ar seeking int o for ce aft er his appoint m ent . Having r egard t o t hese fact s, it was urged t hat t his Court should desist from int er fering wit h t he concur r ent findings of t he High Court . t he 2016 UGCR which cam e is being sought by t he appellant s. t o benefit fr om I n t he UGC int roduced for univ er sit y t he NET. This regulat ions pert aining

13. Fr om t he narrat ion of fact s, it is evident t hat for long, whenev er t o qualificat ions t eaching st aff, ex em pt ions wer e provided for PhD and MPhil holders from t he r equir em ent of t he successiv e qualifying changes which UGC int r oduced in t he r elevant r egulat ions dealing wit h eligibilit y and qualificat ions for appoint m ent as Assist ant Professor s, Associat e Professors, et c. in 1993, 2000, 2002 and 2006. The 2009 PhD Regulat ions w er e t he first t im e t hat t he pedagogic cont ent of curriculum and m anner in which evaluat ion of t hesis/ viva v oce, et c. wer e spelt out . Building on t his, t he 2009/ 10 UGCR dealt w it h t he qualificat ions for appoint m ent of t eaching st aff in univer sit ies, and m ade a br eak wit h t he past is evident fr om 8 inasm uch as only t hose who had earned t heir PhD in t erm s of t he 2009 PhD Regulat ions or wer e t o earn t hem under t hat r egim e wer e ent it led t o t he ex em pt ion fr om t aking t he NET.

14. This m eant t hat a large gr oup of PhD holder s ( such as Dr Jayakum ar in t his case) who had been awarded t heir doct oral degr ees prior t o 11- 7- 2009 i.e. t he cut - off dat e under t he 2009 UGCR, suddenly becam e disent it led t o claim ex em pt ion and wer e per force m ade t o appear and qualify in t he NET. The UGC becom e awar e of t his sit uat ion and by t wo r esolut ions dat ed 12- 8- 2010 and 27- 9- 2010, opined t hat since t he r egulat ions ar e prospect iv e in nat ure, all candidat es having MPhil degree on or befor e 10- 7- 2009 and all per sons who obt ained t he PhD degree on or befor e 31- 12- 2009 and had r egist er ed t hem selves for t he PhD before t his dat e, but w ould be awar ded such degr ee subsequent ly, shall rem ain ex em pt ed fr om t he r equir em ent of NET t he purpose of appoint m ent as Lect urer/ Assist ant Professor . How ev er, as t he fact s discussed in P. Suseela [ P. Suseela v. UGC, ( 2015) 8 SCC 129 : ( 2015) 2 SCC ( L&S) 633 : 7 SCEC 333] r ev eal — t he Cent ral Governm ent did not agr ee wit h t ook place t he opinion of t he Cent ral bet ween Gov ernm ent . I t was in t he background of t hese fact s t hat t he pet it ioner in P. Suseela [ P. Suseela v . UGC, ( 2015) 8 SCC 129 : ( 2015) 2 SCC ( L&S) 633 : 7 SCEC 333] had approached t he Allahabad High Court ( as did som e ot her candidat es in ot her High Court s) . The differing decisions of t he various High Court s led t o appeals befor e t his Court by special leav e. I n t he bat ch of cases decided by P. Suseela [ P. Suseela v . UGC, ( 2015) 8 SCC 129 : ( 2015) 2 SCC ( L&S) 633 : 7 SCEC 333] , t he quest ion of applicat ion of exem pt ion from NET for candidat es who obt ained PhD under t he old r egim e ( i.e. prior t o t he com ing int o t he for ce t he 2009 PhD Regulat ions) was consider ed — specially whet her t he dist inct ion bet w een pr e- and post - 2009/ 10 UGCR PhD holder s am ount ed im perm issible classificat ion, wher eby one set ( pr e- 2009) was denied ex em pt ion which t he ot her set ( post - 2009) w as ent it led t o. t he UGC. Som e cor respondence t he UGC and t w o aut horit ies t o an t he i.e.

15. This Court in P. Suseela [ P. Suseela v. UGC, ( 2015) 8 SCC 129 : ( 2015) 2 SCC ( L&S) 633 : 7 SCEC 333] r uled t hat since t he Cent ral Governm ent was t he final aut horit y under t he UGC Act , it had t he final say wit h regard t o how t he 2009/ 10 UGCR were going t o operat e. I t w as held t hat t he r egulat ions had t o be const rued in such a m anner t hat only t hose acquiring t heir PhD degr ee or aft er 11- 7- 2009 in t erm s of t he 2009 PhD Regulat ions wer e ent it led t o t he ex em pt ion.

16. The fact s of t his case would r ev eal t hat t he select ion pr ocess was com plet ed in 2012. Ther e is no doubt t hat at t hat st age, t he 2009 PhD Regulat ions and 2009/ 10 UGCR wer e in for ce. Yet t he Universit y appoint ed Dr Jayakum ar by applying t he exist ing st andards as underst ood by it . According t o t he Universit y , t he 2009/ 10 UGCR was incorporat ed in it s st at ut e only in 2013. I n t he opinion of t his Court , t hat det ail is ir relevant . What is undeniable is t hat lik e Dr Jayakum ar, t her e ar e perhaps hundreds of ot her PhD candidat es who had secured t heir degr ees prior t o t he 2009 PhD Regulat ions and who were, t ill t he 2009/ 10 UGCR wer e brought int o force, ent it led t o claim exem pt ion fr om NET in ev ery select ion for any t eaching vacancy in any universit y in I ndia. This st at e of affairs led t he UGC t o issue clarificat ions, which t he Cent r al Gov er nm ent did not agree t o. The appellant Dr Jayakum ar fell wit hin t hat cat egory of PhD holder s for whom t he UGC int ended t o soft en t he rigours of t he 2009/ 10 UGCR. How ev er, lack of appr oval by t he Cent ral Governm ent led t o lit igat ion which culm inat ed in P. Suseela.

17.P. Suseela appears facially, t o adv ersely clinch t he issue wit h 9 respect t o pr e- 2009 PhD holder s. The UGC perhaps realised t he hardship which t hey had t o endure ( wit h m any of t hem ev en appoint ed in various universit ies on account of t he r esolut ion adopt ed in UGC's 471st m eet ing on 12- 8- 2010) , and t her efor e am ended t he Regulat ions once m ore ( 2016 UGCR) , which read as follow s: ( Minim um Com m ission “ 3. The pr oviso pr escribed under Regulat ions 3.3.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.2.2, 4.4.2.3, 4.5.3 and 4.6.3 in t he Universit y Grant s appoint m ent of t eacher s and ot her academ ic st aff in Universit ies and Colleges and ot her m easures for t he m aint enance of st andards ( 3t h Am endm ent ) Regulat ions, 2016 r egarding ex em pt ion t o t he candidat es r egist ered for PhD pr ogram m e prior t o 11- 7- 2009 shall st and am ended and be r ead as under: in higher educat ion) qualificat ions furt her, t he award of degr ee t o candidat es Provided regist er ed for t he MPhil/ PhD program m e prior t o 11- 7- 2009, shall be governed by t he provisions of t he t hen exist ing Ordinances/ Bylaws/ Regulat ions of t he I nst it ut ions awarding t he degree and t he PhD candidat es shall be ex em pt ed fr om recruit m ent and appoint m ent of Assist ant Professor or equivalent posit ions in Univer sit ies/ Colleges/ inst it ut ions subj ect t o t he fulfilm ent of t he following condit ions …” v t he r equirem ent of NET/ SLET/ SET ( em phasis supplied)

18. The int ent ion of t he UGC t o prot ect t he pre- 2009 PhD holder s, who m ay hav e been appoint ed in v arious univ er sit ies and t aught for m any y ear s, is evident ly clear in t he language adopt ed. To m ake t he int ent ion ev en clear er , t he 2018 UGCR, published on 18- 7- 2018, bifur cat ed t he pre- and post - 2009 PhD holder s int o t w o groups, and allow ed bot h ex em pt ion fr om t aking t he NET, as follows: “ I . The Nat ional Eligibilit y Test ( NET) or an accr edit ed t est ( St at e Lev el Eligibilit y Test SLET/ SET) shall r em ain t he m inim um eligibilit y for appoint m ent of Assist ant Pr ofessor t hese and equivalent posit ions wherev er provided Regulat ions. Furt her, SLET/ SET shall be valid as t he t o r ecr uit m ent m inim um Universit ies/ Colleges/ I nst it ut ions t he respect iv e st at e only: dir ect eligibilit y in accordance wit h Provided t hat candidat es who hav e been aw arded a PhD degr ee t he Univ er sit y Grant s Com m ission ( Minim um St andards and Pr ocedure for Award of MPhil/ PhD Degree) Regulat ion, 2009, or t he Univ ersit y Grant s Com m ission ( Minim um St andards and Procedure for Award of MPhil/ PhD Degr ee) Regulat ion, 2016, and t heir subsequent am endm ent s fr om t im e t o t im e, as t he case m ay be, shall be ex em pt ed fr om t he requir em ent of t he m inim um eligibilit y recruit m ent and appoint m ent of Assist ant Pr ofessor or any equivalent posit ion in any Univer sit y, College or I nst it ut ion: of NET/ SLET/ SET condit ion Provided furt her t hat t he award of degr ee t o candidat es regist er ed for t he MPhil/ PhD program m e pr ior t o 11- 7- 2009, shall be gov erned by t he pr ovisions of t he t hen exist ing t he Ordinances/ Bye- laws/ Regulat ions I nst it ut ions awarding t he degree. All such PhD candidat es shall be ex em pt ed fr om t he requir em ent of NET/ SLET/ SET for r ecruit m ent and appoint m ent of Assist ant Professor or equivalent posit ions in Univer sit ies/ Colleges/ I nst it ut ions subj ect t o t he fulfilm ent of t he following condit ions…” 10 ( em phasis supplied)

19. This Court did not have t he benefit of exam ining t hese am endm ent s t o t he r egulat ions in P. Suseela or Manoj Sharm a To const rue t hem as applying only prospect ively, w ould giv e rise t he t o an absurdit y, and defeat am endm ent was prom ulgat ed. The m anner of int erpr et at ion of am endm ent s, wher e t he language adopt ed giv es clear infer ence of r et r ospect iv e applicat ion, was det erm ined by t his Court in Rafiquennessa v. Lal Bahadur Chet ri , which pert ained t o t he bar on evict ion of t enant s br ought about ret r ospect iv ely by an am endm ent : t he purpose for which “ 9. … I n order t o m ak e t he st at em ent of t he law r elat ing t o t he r elevant rule of const ruct ion which has t o be adopt ed in dealing wit h t he effect of st at ut ory pr ovisions in t his connect ion, we ought t o add t hat ret rospect ive operat ion of a st at ut ory provision can be infer r ed even in cases wher e such r et roact iv e operat ion appears t o be clearly im plicit in t he provision const rued in t he cont ext wher e it occurs. I n ot her words, a st at ut ory provision is held t o be r et r oact iv e eit her when it is so declar ed by expr ess t erm s, or t he int ent ion t o m ake it ret roact ive clearly follow s fr om t he relevant words and t he cont ext in which t hey occur.” This int erpr et at ion has wit hst ood t he t est of t im e, and was upheld in t he decision of Darshan Singh v. Ram Pal Singh which succinct ly st at ed : ( SCC p. 213, para 37) “ 37. … court s will const rue a provision as conferring power t o act r et r oact iv ely when clear w ords ar e used.”

20. Furt her, Bench of declar at ory law and observ ed : ( SCC p. 49, par a 39) in Shyam Sunder v . Ram Kum ar , a Const it ut ion t he scope and am bit of a t his Court discussed law, requir es t he pr evious “ 39. Last ly, it was cont ended on behalf of t he appellant s t hat t he am ending Act wher eby new Sect ion 15 of t he Act has been subst it ut ed is declarat ory and, t her efor e, has ret roact ive oper at ion. Ordinarily when an enact m ent declar es t o be giv en ret roact ive effect . The funct ion of a declarat or y st at ut e is t o supply an om ission or t o explain a pr evious st at ut e and when such an Act is passed, it com es int o effect when t he previous enact m ent was passed. The legislat ive power t o enact law includes t he power t o declar e w hat was t he previous law and when such a declarat ory Act is passed, t o be ret rospect iv e. Mer e invariably absence of use of in an Act explaining what was t he law before m ay not appear t o be a declar at ory Act but if t he court finds an Act as declar at ory or explanat ory , it has t o be const rued as r et r ospect iv e. Conversely wher e a st at ut e uses t he word “ declar at ory” , t he words so used m ay not be sufficient t o hold t hat t he st at ut e is a declarat ory Act as words m ay be used in order t o bring int o effect new law.” t he word “ declarat ion” it has been held

21. The respondent s her ein had subm it t ed t hat it was not t he UGC's int ent ion t o give r et r ospect iv e effect t o t he 2016 UGCR, ev en t hough t he UGC had t he pow er t o do so under Sect ion 26( 3) of t he UGC Act . I t was addit ionally ur ged t hat in such circum st ances, t he cour t should not int erpr et t he am endm ent s so as t o confer such benefit s ret rospect ively , especially t o pending proceedings.

22. This Court is unper suaded by such cont ent ions. I n sit uat ions such as t hese, a r et rospect iv e r est orat ion of right s which had 11 earlier been t ak en away , will cert ainly affect pending proceedings — how ev er , it is t he dut y of t he court s, whet her t rying original proceedings or hearing an appeal, t o t ak e not ice of t he change in law affect ing pending act ions and t o giv e effect t o t he sam e. I f on such considerat ion, it is held by t he court t hat an am endm ent speaks a language which expr essly or by clear int endm ent t akes in even pending m at t er s, t he court of first inst ance as w ell as t he court of appeal m ust have regard t o t he int ent ion so expr essed, and t he court of appeal m ay give effect t o such a law even aft er t he j udgm ent of t he court of first inst ance.

23. When an enact m ent or an am endm ent is declarat ory, curat ive or clarificat ory, im pelled by a felt need t o m ake clear what was always int ended, such am endm ent is usually m eant t o operat e fr om an ant ecedent dat e, or t o cov er ant ecedent ev ent s. This posit ion was clarified in CI T v. Shelly Product s wher e t his Court , while int erpret ing an am endm ent , held t hat : ( SCC p. 478, para 38) “ 38. … I t seek s t o clarify t he law so as t o r em ov e doubt s leading t o t he court s giving conflict ing decisions, and in sev eral cases direct ing t he Rev enue t o refund t he ent ire am ount of incom e t ax paid by t he assessee wher e t he Revenue was not in a posit ion t o fram e a fresh assessm ent . Being clarificat ory t o be ret rospect ive, in t he fact s and circum st ances of t he case. I t is well- set t led t hat t he legislat ure m ay pass a declarat ory Act t o set aside what t he legislat ur e deem s t o have been a j udicial er ror in t he int erpret at ion of st at ut e. I t only seeks t o clear a m eaning of a pr ovision of t he principal Act and m ake explicit t hat which was already im plicit .” it m ust be held in nat ure

24. Likewise, in Zile Singh v. St at e of Har yana , t his Court , St at ut ory quot ed I nt erpr et at ion ( 9t h Edn.) , and applied rule of const ruct ion : ( SCC p. 9, para 14) Singh's Principles t he relevant G.P. “ 14. … I f a new Act is “ t o explain” an earlier Act , it w ould ret rospect iv e. An be wit hout obj ect unless const rued explanat ory Act is generally passed t o supply an obvious om ission or t o clear up doubt s as t o t he m eaning of t he previous Act . I t is well set t led t hat if a st at ut e is curat ive or r et r ospect iv e m er ely declarat ory of operat ion is generally int ended. … An am ending Act m ay be purely declarat or y t o clear a m eaning of a provision of t he principal Act which w as alr eady im plicit . A clarificat ory am endm ent of t his nat ure will have r et r ospect iv e effect .” t he previous

25. Anot her argum ent raised by t he r espondent was t hat t his Court 's decision in Manoj Sharm a squar ely held against t he appellant s. We disagr ee. I n Manoj Sharm a , t he respondent s had obt ained MPhil degr ees under dist ance educat ion pr ogram s, which was de- r ecognised by t he 2009 PhD Regulat ions. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held t hat such de- r ecognit ion was prospect iv e in nat ure, and t heir MPhil degr ees wer e not r ender ed ineffect iv e, which was upheld by t his Court . As far as t he issue of applicat ion of 2009 UGCR was concerned, t he sam e was rest rict ed t o only MPhil degree- holder s, wherein t he 2009 UGCR rem ov ed t he NET ex em pt ion grant ed for MPhil degree- holders, and ret ained it only for PhD holders in accordance wit h 2009 PhD Regulat ions. Again, t his Court was not afforded t he opport unit y t o analyse t he 2016 or 2018 UGCR, as t hose w ere not raised t his befor e Court ) . Thus, w e find lim it ed applicabilit y of Manoj Sharm a t o t he pr esent case. it ( t he respondent s w ere unrepr esent ed before

26. The logic pervading all t he versions of t he UGCR from 1993- 12 PhD) awarded undoubt edly t he NET was perhaps pr em ised on 2018 ( as discussed above) t o exem pt MPhil/ PhD holder s from qualifying t he underst anding t hat such a doct orat e in one's chosen subj ect , involving y ear s of st udy , w ould render a gr eat er underst anding of t he subj ect com par ed t o m ost ot her candidat es t aking t he NET who hav e only obt ained a Mast er 's degree. Such qualificat ion ( MPhil a prov en pr oficiency of t he candidat e in t he subj ect or discipline concerned. This is apparent fr om t he m inim um qualificat ion requir em ent s of differ ent posit ions as well, for e.g. while a Mast er's degr ee t he post of Assist ant Pr ofessor , a PhD is requir ed for apply ing t o t he post of Associat e Pr ofessor onwards. [ See Regn. 4.1, 2018 UGCR, applicable t o all disciplines of Art s, Com m er ce, Hum anit ies, Educat ion, Law, Social Sciences, Sciences, Languages, Library Science, Physical Educat ion, Jour nalism & Mass Com m unicat ion.] To t he 2018 UGCR prospect ively would im ply t hat a pre- 2009 PhD holder 's appoint m ent would be render ed illegal, and aft er having t aught for sev eral years, he/ she w ould lose his/ her seniorit y and all accrued benefit s and would now hav e t o t ak e t he NET in order t o t each — which is t hat Dr clearly unwarrant ed. This Court Jayakum ar's appoint m ent is prot ect ed by t he 2016 UGCR, which is applicable r et r ospect ively. t her efor e, holds for applicat ion is sufficient int erpr et t o

27. Thus, t he appeals are allow ed. The im pugned j udgm ent is set aside, and all applicat ions are disposed of accordingly. Ther e will be no order as t o cost s.”

11. I n view of t he law declared by Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of Universit y of Kerala v. Marlin J.N. ( supra) , respondent no. 5 and 6 cannot be held t o be ineligible m erely because t heir Ph.D. degree is not as per UGC Regulat ions, 2009. The UGC Regulat ions, 2016 provides t hat if com pet ent aut horit y in t he Universit y, which awarded Ph.D. degree, cert ifies t hat t he concerned candidat e has fulfilled t he five condit ions enum erat ed in Regulat ion 3 t hereof, t hen he is t o be t reat ed as eligible for appoint m ent and t he concerned Universit y has issued such cert ificat e in favour of respondent no. 5 t hat his Ph.D. degree m eet s all five condit ions enum erat ed in UGC Regulat ions, 2016, t herefore challenge t o select ion and appoint m ent of respondent no. 5 on t he ground t hat his Ph.D. degree was not awarded in regular m ode cannot be accept ed. 13

12. For t he aforesaid reasons, t his Court do not find any reason t o int erfere in t he m at t er. Writ pet it ion t hus fails and is dism issed. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 17.06.2025 Sukhwant SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a 8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7 D72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH 14