LexUNIVERSITY OF DELHI versus RAJ SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI A v. RAJ SINGH SEPTEMBER 8, 1994 B (AM. AHMADI AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] Constitution of lndi<~Seventh Schedule, List I, Entry 66-University Grants Commission Act 1956-Sections 14 r/w 26(1)(e) and (o) and 12-Vniversity Grants Commission( Qualifications required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of a University and institutions affiliated .to it) C Regulations, 1991-Regulations 2 and J-National eligi,bility test for lec- turers-UGC prescribing eligi,bility test as a qualification to be appointed to teaching Posts-Relaxation of prescribed qualification with prior approval of UGC-Failure to comply with the recommended qualifications attracting with- holding of grants made by UGC to the University-Whether the test impinges D on power of University to select its teachers and ther<Jf ore beyond the powers invested in the UGC-Held, UGC has wide-rangi,ng powers to act for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching-Written eligi,bility test, based on recommendations of commissions and committees of educationists to ensure standards of teaching, is within the competence of E UGC to prescribe-Held, further, regulations prescribe test to determine basic eligi,bility, and there is no element of selection in the process-University may still select lecturers by written test and interview or either--University's autonomy is not entrenched upon by the Regulations---Delhi University Act 1922. F Constitution of India-Seventh Schedule, List I. Entries 63 and 66-University Grants Commission Act 1956-Section 2lf)-D-elhi University Act 199~Applicability of later Act to institutions mentioned ~r entry 63, including Delhi University-Held, Delhi University and other Universities covered by entry 63 are subject to the regulation of the UGC for purposes of G coordination and determination of standards-It must be assumed that Par- liament was aware of the provisions of the Delhi University Act when it enacted the later legislation-Held, further, any other view would render otiose, qua the universities covered by Entry 63 not only the UGC Act but Entry 66 itself-Also, were Entry 66 to operate only. vis-a-vis institutions other than those mentioned in Entry 66; the UGC Act in its entirety would not apply H 217 218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A to Delhi University, including the provisions relating to grants-Interpretation of statutes-Harmonious Construction. Interpretation of Statutes-University Grants Commission ( Qualifica- tions required of a person t<rbe appointed to the teaching staff of a University and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991-Regulation 2-Mandatory B or directory-Held, regulations prescribing eligibility test recommendatory in character. Interpretation of Statutes-University Grants Commission Act 1956-Sections 12-A, 26( 1 )( e )-"Qualifications''-Definition of Qualification C in Section 12-A(l)(d), held, is confined to the provisions of Section 12-A and does not apply to Section 26(1)(e)-Were it intended to apply throughout the Act held, it would have found place in definition section. The University Grants Commission (Qualifications required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of a university and institutions D affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991 were notified on 19 September, 1991. They prescribed that no person shall be appointed t~ a teaching post in any University, institution or college unless he qualified in a written test to determine eligibility. They provided that a University may relax the prescribed qualification with the prior approval of the UGC. Failure to E comply with this recommendation would lead to withholding the grants proposed to be made by the UGC to the University. The Regulations were to have protective application. F G H In a writ petition filed in the High Court by an aspirant for appoint· ment as lecturer, it was contended for the Delhi University that the Regulations were beyond the competence of the UGC; that, in any event, the Regulations were directory and not mandatory; that the Delhi Univer- sity was an autonomous body and no condition of eligibility could be imposed upon it. The High Court rejected the case of the Delhi University, and upheld the Regulations. In appeal before this Court, the Delhi University reiterated its contentions. It was also a~ed that the definition of University in the UGC Act 1956 ha'd to be read not with r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.