1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.871 OF 2018 arising out of SLP (C)No. 26528 of 2013

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.   ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MANOJ SHARMA & ORS.                 ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.872 OF 2018 arising out of SLP (C)No. 26529 of 2013

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.  ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ALOK TRIPATHI & ORS.              ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. These two appeals have been filed against

the identically worded judgments of High Court

of Madhya Pradesh dated 05.12.2012 and

17.01.2013 respectively dismissing the writ

2

appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh.

The facts and issue in both the appeals being

common, it is sufficient to refer to the facts

and pleadings in civil appeal arising out of

SLP (C) No. 26528 of 2017 for deciding both the

appeals. The parties shall be referred to as

described in the writ petition.

3. The writ petitioners had passed M.Phil.

from different universities under distance

education (between the year 2007 to 2009)

before 11.07.2009. Writ petitioners were

engaged as guest lecturers in different

Government/Semi Government Colleges since

before the year 2009. Higher Education

Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh

issued an order dated 22.02.2012 on the subject

“Arrangement of Guest Lecturers in Government

Colleges for the remaining period of Academic

Session 2011­12 and upcoming sessions”.

4. The Government order provided for criteria

for selection under which various marks were

3

allocated for Ph.D and NET/SET, M.Phil. and

NET/SET. Regional Additional Director, Higher

Education, Gwalior Madhya Pradesh issued an

advertisement dated 21.04.2012 inviting

application for the post of Guest Lecturer in

different subjects. Writ Petitioners had

applied for different posts of Guest Lecturers

through online mode. Their applications were

not accepted.   On inquiry, they came to know

that those candidates who had obtained M.Phil.

degree through distance education programme are

not qualified.

5. Writ Petition No. 3290 of 2012,  Manoj

Sharma and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh

was filed wherein High Court passed an interim

order on 14.05.2012 and directing the

respondents to accept the application form of

the candidates and the result of the candidates

was to be kept in the seal­cover.

6. Writ Petitioners on the strength of the

interim order submitted their applications.

4

Writ Petition No. 3290 of 2012, Manoj Sharma

and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh was

finally disposed off by learned Single Judge on

29.08.2012, holding that those candidates who

have cleared M.Phil. qualification before the

Regulations 2009, namely, University Grants

Commission   (Minimum Standards and Procedure

for the award of M.Phil./Ph.D Degree)

Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter shall be

referred to as “Regulations 2009 of UGC

(Minimum Standards and Procedure”) are eligible

and their result be declared. Learned Single

Judge issued following directions:

“It is further reported that although petitioner's case was considered, but by way of interim order, it was directed that his result will not be declared. Now final order is passed. Petitioner is found eligible, therefore, respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner as eligible on the basis of the aforesaid Master of Philosophy certificate and declare the result alongwith other candidates.”

7. The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a writ

5

appeal against the judgments of learned Single

Judge and Division Bench of the High Court vide

its judgment dated 05.12.2012 dismissed the

appeal. The State is in appeal against the

judgment of the Division Bench.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits

that in view of the regulations framed by the

University Grants Commission, Regulations 2009

of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure), the

M.Phil./Ph.D. Programmes conducted through

distance education are not acceptable. He

submits that since M.Phil. degree of the writ

petitioners was by distance education mode,

they do not fulfil the qualification for

appointment as Guest Lecturer and the judgment

of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench

taking a contrary view is unsustainable.  

9. No one has appeared on behalf of the

respondent at the time of hearing. Although a

counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondent

No. 1, Manoj Sharma has been filed, supporting

6

the view taken by the learned Single Judge and

the Division Bench. We have considered the

submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant and perused the record.  

10. The   Regulations 2009 of UGC on Minimum

Standards and Procedure were published in

Gazette of India on 11.7.2009. Regulation 5

which is relevant, is to the following effect:

“Regulation 5. Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations or any other Rule or regulation, for the time being in force, no University, Institution, Deemed to be University and College/Institution of National Importance shall conduct M.Phil and Ph.D Programmes through distance education mode.”

11. Learned Single Judge and Division Bench

took the view that according to Regulations

2009 of UGC on Minimum Standards and Procedure,

it was only with effect from 11.7.2009 that any

university, institution or deemed university

were prohibited from conducting M.Phil./Ph.D.

7

through distance education mode hence, degree

obtained prior to enforcement of said

regulation are not washed out. The High Court

has held that Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum

Standards and Procedure) are prospective in

nature and shall not operate retrospectively.

Learned Single Judge took the view that

Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and

Procedure) being not retrospective shall not

wipe out the M.Phil. qualification already

acquired by the writ petitioners prior to

above­said regulation.  

12. Regulation 3 under Regulations 2009 of UGC

(Minimum Standards and Procedure), clearly

provides for enforcement for the regulation

from the date of their publication in the

Gazette of India. Regulation 3 is as follows:

“They shall come into force with effect from the date of their publication in the Gazette of India.”

13. Thus, it is clear that regulations are

prospective in nature and may not affect the

8

qualifications granted by an university or

institution prior to the enforcement of the

regulation. We thus do not find any error in

the judgment of the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh. Learned Single Judge had thus rightly

directed the respondent to consider the case of

the writ petitioners on the basis of M.Phil.

degree and declare the result alongwith other

candidates.

14. There is another issue which needs to be

noticed at this juncture. On the same day when

regulations pertaining to Minimum Standards and

Procedure for the award of M.Phil./Ph.D Degree

were published, another regulations were

published in the Gazette on the same day i.e.

on 11.7.2009, namely, UGC(Minimum

Qualifications for Appointment and Career

Advancement of Teachers in Affiliated

Universities  and Institutions) (3rd  amendment)

Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter shall be

referred to as “Regulations 2009 of UGC(Minimum

9

Qualifications for Appointment”).

15. University Grants Commission had issued

regulations relating to minimum qualification

for the post of lecturer in the year 2000 which

regulations were amended in 2002 and 2006.

According to Regulations 2000, Regulation 1.3.3

provides for qualification for Lecturer as

follows:

“1.3.3 Lecturer

Good academic record with at least 55% of the marks or, an equivalent grade of B  in the 7 point scale with latter grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the Master's degree level, in the relevant subject from an Indian University, or, an equivalent degree from a foreign university.

Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates should have cleared the eligibility test (NET) for lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC.

Note: NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph.D. degree. However, the candidates who have completed M. Phil. Degree or have

10

submitted Ph.D. thesis in the concerned subject up to 31st

December, 1993, are exempted from appearing in the NET examination.”

16. As noted above, the above­mentioned

regulations were amended and amendments dated

11.7.2009 were relevant whereas the note as

contained in Regulation 1.3.3 was substituted by

following:

“NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities /Colleges/Institutions.   

Provided, however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded Ph.D. Degree in compliance of the “University Grants Commission(minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D Degree), Regulation 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and  appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges /Institutions.”

17. It has to be noticed that the amendment as

made in the minimum qualification, now provides

11

that the exemption from NET shall be given to

the Ph.D. degree holders, only when Ph.D.

degree has been awarded to them in compliance

with the Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum

Standards and Procedure). The above provision

thus, made it mandatory that for lecturers NET

qualification is necessary and exemption shall

be granted to those Ph.D. degree holders who

have obtained Ph.D. degree in accordance with

the Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards

and Procedure). The purpose and object of the

above amendments in both Regulations 2009 of

UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure) as well

as  Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum

Qualifications for Appointment) is not far to

seek. There has been challenge to amendments

made in Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum

Qualifications for Appointment)in so far as it

denied the benefit to Ph.D degree holders who

had obtained Ph.D prior to 11.7.2009.   Writ

Petitions were filed in different High Courts

12

challenging the regulations on different

grounds including that regulations are

arbitrary and violative of Article 14 which

discriminate the Ph.D. degree holders who have

obtained Ph.D. degree prior to 11.7.2009 and

those who obtained the degree after 11.7.2009

in accordance with  Regulations 2009 of UGC on

Minimum Standards and Procedure.

18. The challenge to regulations were repelled

by different High Courts whereas Allahabad High

Court  vide  its judgment dated 6.4.2012 in  Dr.

Ramesh Kumar Yadav and Another versus

University of Allahabad  and Others  has upheld

the challenge. Appeals were filed against the

judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, Delhi

High Court and Madras High Court by the

candidates whose writ petitions were dismissed

as well as against the judgment of the

Allahabad High Court dated 06.04.2012,

upholding the contention of the candidates.

This Court decided all the appeals by its

13

judgment reported in  P. Susheela and Others

versus University Grants Commission and Others,

(2015) 8 SCC 129.  This Court upheld the

judgment of the High Courts of Rajasthan,

Madras and Delhi and set aside the judgment of

the Allahabad High Court dated 6.4.2012,

upholding that the amendments made in

Regulations 2009 of UGC(Minimum Qualifications

for Appointment) were valid and there is a

valid classification between the candidates who

have obtained degree prior to Regulations 2009

of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure) and

those who obtained the degree in accordance

with the above­said regulation.

19. Thus, rejecting the contention of the

private respondent, following was laid down in

paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 18:

“16. Similar is the case on facts here. A vested right would arise only if any of the appellants before us had actually been appointed to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professors. Till that date, there is no vested right in any of the appellants. At the highest,

14

the appellants could only contend that they have a right to be considered for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor. This right is always subject to minimum eligibility conditions, and till such time as the appellants are appointed, different conditions may be laid down at different times. Merely because an additional eligibility condition in the form of a NET test is laid down, it does not mean that any vested right of the appellants is affected, nor does it mean that the regulation laying down such minimum eligibility condition would be retrospective in operation. Such condition would only be prospective as it would apply only at the stage of appointment. It is clear, therefore, that the contentions of the private appellants before us must fail.

17. One of the learned counsel for the petitioners argued, based on the language of the direction of the Central Government dated 12­11­2008 that all that the Government wanted UGC to do was to "generally" prescribe NET as a qualification. But this did not mean that UGC had to prescribe this qualification without providing for any exemption. We are unable to accede to this argument for the simple reason that the word "generally" precedes the word "compulsory" and it is clear that the language of the direction has been followed both in letter and in spirit by the UGC regulations of 2009 and 2010.

15

18. The arguments based on Article 14 equally have to be rejected. It is clear that the object of the directions of the Central Government read with the UGC Regulations of 2009/2010 are to maintain excellence in standards of higher education. Keeping this object in mind, a minimum eligibility condition of passing the national eligibility test is laid down. True, there may have been exemptions laid down by UGC in the past, but the Central Government now as a matter of policy feels that any exemption would compromise the excellence of teaching standards in universities/ colleges/institutions governed by the UGC. Obviously, there is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory in this ­ in fact it is a core function of UGC to see that such standards do not get diluted.”

20. Thus, from the above judgment, it is clear

that NET qualification is now minimum

qualification for appointment of Lecturer and

exemption granted to M.Phil. degree holders

have been withdrawn and exemption is allowed

only to those Ph.D. degree holders who have

obtained the Ph.D. degree in accordance with

11.7.2009 regulations, namely, Regulations 2009

of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure).

16

Although, this aspect has not been noticed by

the High Court but since the learned Single

Judge has directed the consideration of the

case of the writ petitioner on the basis of

M.Phil. degree which was obtained by them by

distance education mode prior to 2009, it is

necessary that their eligibility for the post

be examined taking into consideration the

Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Qualifications

for Appointment). The advertisement and

selection for Guest Lecturers having been

conducted in the year 2012 when both the

Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and

Procedure) and Regulations 2009 of UGC(Minimum

Qualifications for Appointment) were

applicable.

21. There is nothing on the record as to

whether after the judgment of the learned

Single Judge, writ petitioners' result was

declared and they were selected or appointed.

This Court has also passed an interim order of

17

16.08.2013 staying the operation of the

judgment of the High Court for the period of

three months. No further orders have been

passed extending the interim order.

22. We are thus of the view that judgment of

the High Court needs no interference in this

appeal, however, the appeals are to be disposed

off with the direction to consider the

eligibility of the writ petitioner taking also

into consideration the Regulations 2009 of UGC

(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment).

23. Both the appeals are disposed off

accordingly.

.........................J.       ( A.K. SIKRI )

.........................J.       ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

NEW DELHI, January 25, 2018.