P. SUSEELA & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 643 · Decided: 16-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 5 S.G.R. 643 
P. SUSEELA & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
UNIVE~SITY @RANTS COMMISSION & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2891-2900 of 2015) 
8 
MARCH 16, 2015 
[T.S. THAKUR AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] 
University Grants Commission Regulations (Minimum C 
Qualifications Required for the Appointment And Career 
Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions 
affiliated to it) (the. third Amendment) Regulation 2009 -
Recruitment. and appointment of Lecturers in Universities! 
Colleges/Institutions thereunder - NET!SLET to be the D 
minimum eligibility condition - Constitutional validity of -
Plea that earlier UGC exempted Ph.D and M.Phil 
candidates from the said eligibility test, but later Union 
Government issued a directive including NET!SLET to be 
the minimum eligibility condition; and that the said E 
regulations were issued pursuant to directions of the Central 
Government which themselves were issued outside the 
powers conferred by UGC Act, thus, the eligibility conditions 
would not apply to MPhil and Ph.D degrees awarded prior 
to 31.12.2009 - Held: Object of the directions of Central F 
Government read with the UGC regulations of 200912010 are 
to maintain excellence in standards of higher education -
Keeping the object in mind, a minimum eligibility condition 
of passing the national eligibility test is laid down, thus, is 
valid - Petitions fil&d by PhD/MPhil holders challenging the G 
regulations dismissed, however, the Regulations would be 
prospective - University Grants Commission Act, 1956- ss. 
20, 22, 26. 
643 
H 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeals and disposing of the 
contempt petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A vested right would arise only if any of 
the appellants had actually been appointed to the post 
B of Lecturer/Assistant Professors. Till that date, there is 
no vested right in any of the appellants. At the highest, 
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 
C 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 
D 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. [Para 15] (661-G-H; 662-A-C] 
E 
1.2 It was submitted based on the language of the 
direction of the Central Government dated 12th 
November, 2008 that all that the Government wanted the 
UGC to do was to "generally" prescribe NET as a 
F qualification. But this did not mean that UGC had to 
prescribe this qualification without providing for any 
exemption. This cannot be accepted for the simple 
reason that the word "generally" precedes the word 
"compulsory" and it is clear that the language of the 
G direction has been followed both in letter and in spirit 
by the UGC regulations of 2009 and 2010. [Para 16] 
[662-D-F] 
1.3 The object of the directions of the Central 
H Government read with the UGC regulations of 2009/2010 
P. SUSEELA v. U.G.C. 
645 
are to maintain excellence in standards of higher A 
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 the UGC in the past, but the Central 
Government now as a matter of policy feels that any B 
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 the UGC to see that such standards do not C 
get diluted. [Para 17][662-G-H; 663-A] 
1.4 A legitimate expectation must always yield to the 
larger public interest. The larger public interest in the 
instant case is nothing less than having highly qualified D 
Assistant Professors to teach in UGC Institutions. Even 
if, therefore, the private appellants had a legitimate 
expectation that given the fact that the UGC granted 
them an exemption from the NET and continued to 
state that such exemption should continue to be E 
granted even after the Government direction of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.