UNIVERSITY OF KERALA AND ORS. ETC. versus MERLIN J. N. AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 323 · Decided: 17-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
323
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA AND ORS. ETC.
v.
MERLIN J. N. AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5309-5314 of 2022)
AUGUST 17, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Service Law – Exemption of NET for Ph.D Holders –
Prospective Operation of 2018 UGCR – UGC (Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers
in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to It) Regulations – In 2009,
amendment was made to the UGC Regulations, 2000 (UGCR) – By
this amendment, for the first time, the minimum stipulation for the
appointment of lecturer was introduced i.e. NET – However,
candidates who had acquired their Ph.D. were exempted from
qualifying in the NET – On 13.06.2011, the University invited
applications for filling up the post of Lecturer in various subjects –
The minimum qualification was NET, however, the advertisement
exempted candidates who had a Ph.D. in the concerned subject
from qualifying the NET – One ‘J’ who applied for the post was
ranked in the first position and the respondent was placed at second
rank – Respondent challenged the appointment of ‘J’ before the
High Court on the ground that it contravened the 2009/10 UGCR,
i.e., as ‘J’ had not obtained his Ph.D.(on 23.08.2006) in accordance
with the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations – High Court held that the ‘J’ was
not qualified to hold the post of Lecturer – Division Bench affirmed
the order passed by the Single Judge by holding that the 2016 UGCR
amendment which enable those awarded Ph.D. degrees prior the
cut-off date of 11.07.2009 to also be considered for appointment
as Lecturers was applicable only prospectively, and hence denied
the benefit to ‘J’ - On appeal, Held: There are perhaps hundreds of
other Ph.D. candidates who had secured their degrees prior to the
2009 Ph.D. Regulations and who were, till the 2009/10 UGCR were
brought into force, entitled to claim exemption from NET in every
selection for any teaching vacancy in any university in India – The
2018 UGCR, bifurcated the pre- and post-2009 Ph.D. holders into
two groups, and allowed both exemption from taking the NET – To
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 323
323
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
construe them as applying only prospectively, would give rise to
an absurdity, and defeat the purpose for which the amendment was
promulgated – It is the duty of the courts, whether trying original
proceedings or hearing an appeal, to take notice of the change in
law affecting pending actions and to give effect to the same - To
interpret the 2018 UGCR prospectively would imply that a pre-2009
Ph.D. holder’s appointment would be rendered illegal, and after
having taught for several years, he/she would lose his/her seniority
and all accrued benefits and would now have to take the NET in
order to teach – which is clearly unwarranted.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The facts of this case would reveal that the
selection process was completed in 2012. There is no doubt that
at that stage, the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations and 2009/10 UGCR
were in force. Yet the University appointed ‘ J’(Dr.) by applying
the existing standards as understood by it. According to the
University, the 2009/10 UGCR was incorporated in its statute
only in 2013. In the opinion of this court, that detail is irrelevant.
What is undeniable is that like ‘J’, there are perhaps hundreds
of other Ph.D. candidates who had secured their degrees prior to
the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations and who were, till the 2009/10 UGCR
were brought into force, entitled to claim exemption from NET
in every selection for any teaching vacancy in any university in
India. This state of affairs led the UGC to issue clarifications,
which the Central Government did not agree to. The appellant
‘J’ fell within that category of Ph.D. holders for whom the UGC
intended to soften the rigors of the 2009/10 UGCR. However,
lack of approval by the Central Government led to litigation which
culminated in P. Suseela. [Para 16][335-C-E]
1.2 P. Suseela appears facially, to adversely clinch the issue
with respect to pre-2009 Ph.D. holders. The UGC perhaps
realized the hardship which they had to endure (with many of
them even appointed in various universities on account of the
resolution adopted in UGC’s 471st meeting on 12.08.2010), and
therefore amended the regulations once more (2016 UGCR).
[Para 17][335-F-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
325
1.3 The intention of the UGC to protect the pre-2009 Ph.D.
holders, who may have been appointed 

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