Dismisses writ petition by group of Associate Professors seeking exemption
Morung Express News
Dimapur | July 3
The Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench, on July 1, has ruled that those without PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) Degree and other qualifications do not have “an accrued right to be placed in the Professor Grade or Principal.”
This prescribed not only by the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules, 2015 (Rules of 2015) but also by the UGC Regulations 2010, adopted by the State on August 24, 2010, the Bench noted, dismissing a writ petition filed by 25 petitioners. The petitioners comprise of 24 Associate Professors and a Controller of Examination, seeking exemption from the PhD mandate.
Case Background
In their plea, the petitioners pointed out that they were appointed as Lecturer between June 1, 1986-March 13, 1996 through the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) under the Department of Higher Education (DHE). At present, the post of Lecturer has been re-designated as Assistant Professor while Senior Grade Lecturers now are Associate Professors.
Accordingly, they argued that when they were appointed, the eligibility criteria were Master’s Degree with minimum 55% marks, and was governed by the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules, 1990 (Rules of 1990), later amended to the Rules of 2003, with same eligibility criteria at entry level.
However, it was repealed by the Rules of 2015, which stipulated that the post of Associate Professor is the feeder post for “promotion/placement to the grade” of Professor/Principal and the essential qualification is “PhD with a minimum service of 3 years at Stage-4.”
Accordingly, the petitioners contended that as they were appointed under the Rules of 1990 & 2003, they have the “accrued and vested right to be considered for promotion/placement to the higher post” but were “adversely affected” with the adoption of the Rules of 2015.
They further pointed out that few Associate Professors with more or less similar plea had approached the Court before. While, it was disposed off on April 24, 2016 without any relief, after a Civil Review petition by the State Government against the judgement citing shortage of Principals, the then petitioners were promoted as principals, they added.
In the present case, the petitioners informed that there were 46 Associate Professors without PhD and as late as November 2019, the degree was not an essential qualification for recruitment.
At the time of initial appointment, the petitioner stated that they were assured that their qualification would “not be a bar for upward progression” in their service careers and such “assurance” was key to their acceptance.
However, a DHE Advertisement on September 4, 2019 for the post of Principal stipulated the essential qualification as the provided in the Rules of 2015.
Against the same, the petitioners submitted a representation to the concerned authority asserting that their right to be “considered for promotion should be protected” as they were appointed before the enforcement of the Rules of 2015. With no response to their representation, the petitioners approached the Court.
Rules needed to maintain standard of higher education
During the hearings, the counsel for the petitioners, among others, argued that Rules of 2015 does not provide any promotional avenues to those appointed prior its enactment and it cannot withstand the “test of reasonableness” under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not workable.
Rule 28 of Rules of 2015 provided for the power of the Governor to relax the application of “any Rule where undue is likely to be caused to any person by the application of the Rules…,” the counsel highlighted.
In response, the State counsel submitted that the UGC Guidelines was adopted by the State Government on August 24, 2010 and since then, the petitioners were aware of the mandatory PhD. Many have gone for study leave for the PhD degree thereafter.
Besides, the State counsel underscored that the petitioners have also not challenged the basic notification by which the UGC norms have been adopted, and hence, it was not maintainable.
The UGC norms is a “reasonable classification” for maintaining higher standard and does not violate the Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the State counsel added, further citing previous judgments by the Supreme Court of India.
After going through the submissions, the Bench comprising of Justice Songkhupchung Serto and Justice Nelson Sailo noted that the UGC Regulations, 2010 has been there for quite some time and the petitioners were aware of the introduction.
The Bench also noted that the Rules of 2015 has been framed in the exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in line with the UGC Regulations of 2010.
To maintain the standards in higher education, the Commission has framed the Regulations which equally apply to all the Institutions and Universities receiving funds from the UGC, it said, rejecting the argument that the Rules of 2015 are “unworkable and infringed upon the vested right of the petitioners.”
The framers in order to raise the standards in higher education had prescribed the minimum qualification” for career advancement and when the framers “having the expertise have found it appropriate,” the Bench noted that the Court should not interfere. The interference would be warranted only when the provisions of the Rules are found to be arbitrary or discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, it said.
As the petitioners have not challenged the UGC Regulations 2010 Regulations, the challenge to the Rules of 2015, based on the said regulation, “would be of no consequence,” it held, citing an Apex Court ruling (Edukanti Kistamma & Ors) on the issue.
Further, the Bench noted that it is the exclusive responsibility of the “Central Government to determine the standards for higher education and the same should not be lowered at the hands of any particular State" as it is of great importance to National progress.”
Regardless of previous exemptions, hence, it observed that the Central Government now as a matter of “policy feels that any exemption would compromise the excellence of teaching standards in institutions governed by the UGC”, and rejected the argument for Governor’s relaxation.
