Non-Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.4278  of 2018

(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.30503 of 2015)

DR.SHADAB AHMED KHAN & ANR. …APPELLANT (S)

Versus

PROF. MUJAHID BEG & ORS.  .…..RESPONDENT (S)

WITH

Civil Appeal No.4280    of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.16818 of 2016)

Civil Appeal No.4279   of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.34523 of 2015)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

1. The promotion of the Appellants and Respondent Nos.6

and  7  as  Professors  in  the  Jawahar  Lal  Nehru  Medical

College,  Aligarh  Muslim  University  under  the  Career

Advancement Scheme was challenged by Respondent No.1

by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court of Allahabad.  The

1

Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court by its judgment

dated  07.10.2015.   The  promotion  of  the  Appellants  and

Respondent  Nos.6 and 7  as  Professors  was  set  aside and

they were directed to be reverted from the post of Professor.

Aggrieved  by  the  said  judgment,  the  Appellants  have

approached  this  Court  by  filing  this  appeal.  The  Aligarh

Muslim University (Respondent No.3 before the High Court)

and Dr. Shahzad F. Haque (Respondent No. 7 before the High

Court)  have  also  filed  Special  Leave  Petitions  against  the

said judgment.

2. Respondent No.1 was initially appointed as a Lecturer

on  05.08.1992  in  the  Jawahar  Lal  Nehru  Medical  College,

Aligarh Muslim University.   He was promoted as a Reader

under the Career Advancement Scheme on 25.06.2003.  He

was further selected for appointment to the post of Professor

under  the  Career  Advancement  Scheme as  well  as  cadre

promotion.  Respondent No.1 was also promoted to the cadre

post in 2009.  He waived his right for promotion under the

Career  Advancement  Scheme  and  was  treated  as  having

been  promoted  to  a  cadre  post.   The  Appellants  and

2

Respondent Nos.6 and 7 were considered for promotion to

the post of Professor (Career Advancement Scheme).  On the

basis  of  the  recommendation  of  the  General  Selection

Committee,  the  Appellants  and  Respondent  Nos.6  and  7

were promoted as Professors with effect from the dates of

their  entitlement.    As  some  of  them  were  promoted  as

Professors  with  effect  from 2009,  they  become seniors  to

Respondent No.1 as Professors.  Respondent No.1 submitted

a representation to the University against the promotions of

the  Appellants  and  Respondent  Nos.6  and  7.   This

representation was rejected by a letter  dated 24.07.2013.

Challenging the orders of promotion of the Appellants and

Respondent Nos.6 and 7,  dated 15.06.2013 and the letter

dated 24.07.2013 by which his representation was rejected,

Respondent No.1 approached the High Court by filing a Writ

Petition.

3. Several  points  were  raised  before  the  High  Court

regarding the ineligibility of the Appellants and Respondent

Nos.6 and 7 for being considered for promotion to the post of

Professors.  The High Court allowed the Writ Petition only on

3

one  point  i.e.  the  lack  of  qualification  of  Ph.D.  which

disentitled  Appellants  and  Respondent  Nos.6  and  7  from

being appointed as Professor.        The High Court did not go

into any other issue in view of the findings recorded on the

lack  of  qualification  on  the  part  of  the  Appellants  and

Respondent Nos.6 and 7.

4. The Aligarh  Muslim University  is  a  Central  University

governed by the Universities Act, 1920.  It is an autonomous

organization fully funded by the Government of India.  The

regulations  framed  by  the  University  Grants  Commission

(UGC)  are  applicable  to  the  University.   The  service

conditions, appointments and promotions of teachers in the

University are governed by the statutes of the University and

the  Ordinances  promulgated  by  the  Executive

Council/Academic Council.

5. For a better understanding of the controversy it would

be relevant to refer to the provisions of the UGC regulations.

The UGC  Regulations  of  Minimum  qualification  for

Appointment  of  teachers  and  other  Academic  Staff  in

Universities,  Colleges  and  measures  for  maintenance  of

4

Standards  in  Higher  Education (hereinafter  referred  to  as

UGC  Regulations)  were  framed  in  2010.  The  Regulations

were made applicable to the University and college teachers,

lecturers,  directors  of  physical  education  admitted  to  the

privileges of the University.  Clause 1.1.1 provides that for

teachers in the faculty of medicine, the norms/ regulations of

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India

shall  apply.    Clause  4.1.0  which  deals  with  the  direct

recruitment  for  the  post  of  Professors  provides  for  Ph.D.

qualification for appointment to the said post.   Clause 6.4.8

of  the  UGC  Regulations  concerns  the  promotion  to  be

granted  under  the  Career  Advancement  Scheme  and

provides  that  the  educational  qualification  for

appointment/promotion  as  a  Professor  and  Associate

Professor is a Ph.D.   Clause 4.1.0 and Clause 6.4.8 are not

applicable to teachers working in the faculty of medicine as

they would be governed by Regulations of Ministry of Health

and Family Welfare, Government of India as per Clause 1.1.1.

6. The  Aligarh  Muslim  University  made  suitable

amendments  to  the  Ordinances  (Executive)  for  promotion

5

under the Career Advancement Scheme to bring it in accord

with the UGC Regulations of 2010.  Clause 12.5 of Chapter IV

of the Ordinance (Executive) contemplates that no teacher

shall be promoted without a Ph.D. degree.  Clause 12 (19) of

the Ordinances (Executive) provides for prescription of the

minimum qualifications  for  candidates  from the  faculty  of

medicine by the Medical Council of India (MCI) and it reads

as follows:- “12  (19) the  candidates  from  the  faculty  of medicine and Unani Medicine possessing minimum qualifications  as  prescribed  by  the  MCI  and CCIM/AYUSH, respectively, for the posts of Associate Professor  and  Professor  may  also  apply  for promotion under these Ordinances subject to their fulfilling  other  conditions  as  laid  down  in  these Ordinances.”  

7. A  perusal  of  the  UGC  Regulations,  2010,  referred  to

above, would clearly show that the minimum qualifications

prescribed by the Government of India are applicable to the

teachers working in the faculty of medicine in the University.

Clause 12 (19) of Chapter IV of the Ordinances (Executive)

makes it clear that teachers in the faculty of medicine should

possess  qualification  as  prescribed  by  the  MCI.   The  MCI

regulations,  placed  before  us,  shows  that  MD/MS  is  the

6

minimum  qualification  for  appointment  to  the  post  of

Professor in a medical college.   

8. The UGC has to be blamed for the confusion that was

created in determining the eligibility criterion for promotion

to the post of Professor.  The Counsel for the UGC appearing

in  the  High  Court  relied  upon  Clause  6.4.8  of  the  UGC

Regulations  and  argued  that  Ph.D.  was  required  for

promotion to the post of Professor in a medical college.  A

counter affidavit was filed before us on 24.10.2016 taking

the  same  stand.   The  UGC  filed  an  additional  counter

affidavit  in  November,  2016  in  which  they  corrected  the

mistake committed earlier and stated that the qualification

for  the  teaching  post  in  the  faculty  of  medicine  shall  be

those  prescribed  by  the  Ministry  of  Health  and  Family

Welfare in consultation with the statutory Council i.e. Medical

Council of India.   We are unable to accept the contention of

the Respondent that the MCI Regulations are not applicable

as the UGC Regulations speak of Regulations to be framed

by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of

India.  

7

9. The  High  Court  relied  upon  the  submissions  of  the

Counsel for the UGC to hold that Appellants and Respondent

Nos.6 and 7 could not be promoted to the post of Professor

under the Career Advancement Scheme without possessing

the qualification of Ph.D.  Further, the High Court committed

an  error  in  its  interpretation  of  Clause  12  (19)  of  the

amended Ordinances (Executive).  As noted above, Clause

12 (19) states that the qualifications for faculty of medicine

are to be prescribed by the MCI.  Clause 12 (19) provides

that  candidates  can  apply  for  promotion  under  the

Ordinances subject to their fulfilling other conditions as laid

down in the Ordinances.  The High Court wrongly held that

fulfillment of other conditions as laid down in the Ordinances

(Executive) would include Clause 12 (5) which mandates a

Ph.D.  degree for  promotion to the post  of  Professor.   The

qualifications that are required for promotion to the post of

Professor  in  a  medical  college  are  not  governed  by  the

Regulations  as  is  clear  from  Clause  1.1.1  of  the  UGC

Regulations,  2010.   The other  conditions laid down in the

Ordinances (Executive) are with reference to Clauses 12(6)

8

to 12(18) and not Clause 12 (5).   The finding of the High

Court that the teaching staff in the medical college should

have qualification as prescribed in Clause 12 (5) would be

rendering Clause 12 (19) otiose.  Clause 6.4.8 and Clause

12.5 are inapplicable to the teaching staff working in medical

colleges  as  they  would  be  governed  by  the  regulations

framed by the MCI.  

10. The  High  Court  did  not  adjudicate  the  other  points

raised by the Respondent No.1 in the Writ Petition in view of

the finding recorded by it on the point of the ineligibility of

the Appellants and Respondent Nos.6 and 7 for promotion to

the post of Professor.   

11. For  the  reasons  mentioned  above,  we  hold  that  the

conclusion  of  the  High  Court  that  Ph.D.  is  required  for

promotion to the post of Professor in a medical college is not

correct.  We set aside the judgment of the High Court and

remand the matter back for consideration of the other points

raised  by  Respondent  No.1.   The  Writ  Petition  stands

restored.   

9

12. The appeals filed by the Aligarh Muslim University (SLP

(C)  No.  34523/2015)  and  Dr.Shahzad  F.Haque  (SLP  (C)No.

16818/2016) are also disposed of in terms of the findings in

Dr.  Shadab  Ahmed  Khan  (SLP  (C)  No.  30503/2015)

accordingly.  

13. For  the  aforementioned  reasons,  the  appeals  are

disposed of.          

        ........................................J.                                                                  [S.A. BOBDE]

               ........................................J.               [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

New Delhi, April 23, 2018

10