2022 (8) TMI 1581 - SC - Indian Laws

Legality of Dr. Jayakumar s appointment as Lecturer in Sociology by the University - HELD THAT - 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 Dr. Jayakumar 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 Dr. Jayakumar 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 Dr. Jayakumar 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 2015 (8) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT . The logic pervading all the versions of the UGCR from 1993-2018 (as discussed above) to exempt M. Phil. / Ph.D. holders from qualifying in the NET was perhaps premised on the understanding that such a doctorate in one s chosen subject involving years of study would render a greater understanding of the subject compared to most other candidates taking the NET who have only obtained a Master s degree. Such qualification (M. Phil. or Ph. D.) is undoubtedly awarded for a proven proficiency of the candidate in the concerned subject or discipline. This is apparent from the minimum qualification requirements of different positions as well for e.g. while a Master s degree is sufficient for application to the post of Assistant Professor a Ph.D. is required for applying to the post of Associate Professor onwards. 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. Conclusion - Dr. Jayakumar s appointment is protected by the 2016 UGCR which is applicable retrospectively. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Court revolve around the validity and legality of the appointment of Dr. Jayakumar as a Lecturer in Sociology by the University, specifically:

1. Whether Dr. Jayakumar was qualified for appointment as Lecturer under the extant University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations in force at the time of his appointment, particularly the 2009 and 2010 UGC Regulations (UGCR) and the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations.

2. Whether the exemption from the National Eligibility Test (NET) qualification applied to Dr. Jayakumar, who had obtained his Ph.D. prior to the introduction of the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations.

3. The legal effect and applicability of subsequent amendments to the UGC regulations, particularly the 2016 and 2018 UGCR, on the eligibility of pre-2009 Ph.D. holders like Dr. Jayakumar.

4. The validity and binding nature of the UGC resolution dated 12.08.2010 (471st meeting) which purported to exempt certain pre-2009 Ph.D. holders from the NET requirement.

5. The retrospective or prospective operation of amendments to the UGCR and their impact on appointments made prior to such amendments.

6. The treatment and effect of conflicting views between the UGC and the Central Government regarding the applicability of the NET exemption to pre-2009 Ph.D. holders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Qualification of Dr. Jayakumar under the 2009/2010 UGCR and 2009 Ph.D. Regulations

The relevant legal framework comprises the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers) Regulations, initially promulgated in 2000 and amended in 2002, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2016, and 2018. The 2009 Ph.D. Regulations introduced a uniform and rigorous academic framework for the award of Ph.D. degrees, including coursework, evaluation procedures, open viva voce, and publication requirements.

The 2009 and 2010 UGCR mandated NET qualification as the minimum eligibility for appointment as Lecturer or Assistant Professor but exempted candidates who obtained their Ph.D. in compliance with the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations from the NET requirement. This represented a departure from earlier regulations that exempted M.Phil. and Ph.D. holders without such stringent conditions.

The Court noted that Dr. Jayakumar obtained his Ph.D. in 2006, prior to the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations, and therefore did not meet the exemption criteria under the 2009/2010 UGCR. The University's appointment of Dr. Jayakumar in 2012 was thus challenged as contrary to the extant regulations.

The Court emphasized that the University's adoption of the 2009/10 UGCR in its statutes only in 2013 was irrelevant; the applicable law for eligibility was the UGC regulations in force at the time of appointment.

2. Applicability of the NET exemption to pre-2009 Ph.D. holders and the UGC's 2010 resolution

The UGC, recognizing the hardship caused to pre-2009 Ph.D. holders by the 2009/10 UGCR, issued resolutions in August and September 2010 purportedly exempting candidates who obtained their Ph.D. on or before 31.12.2009 or registered for Ph.D. before that date from the NET requirement.

However, the Central Government disagreed with this resolution, asserting that it conflicted with the 2010 UGCR and the UGC Act's provisions. This disagreement led to litigation, including the P. Suseela case, where the Supreme Court held that the Central Government's position prevailed and that only Ph.D. holders who obtained their degrees under the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations (post 11.07.2009) were entitled to NET exemption.

The Court relied heavily on this precedent to conclude that the UGC's 2010 resolution could not benefit Dr. Jayakumar, whose Ph.D. predated the 2009 Regulations.

3. Retrospective effect and applicability of the 2016 and 2018 UGCR amendments

Subsequent to the P. Suseela ruling, the UGC amended the regulations in 2016 and 2018 to address the plight of pre-2009 Ph.D. holders. The 2016 UGCR introduced specific conditions under which candidates registered for M.Phil./Ph.D. prior to 11.07.2009 could be exempted from NET, including regular mode of Ph.D., evaluation by external examiners, open viva voce, publication of research papers, and presentations at conferences.

The 2018 UGCR further bifurcated pre- and post-2009 Ph.D. holders, providing exemption to both categories subject to compliance with respective standards and conditions.

The Court interpreted these amendments as declaratory, clarificatory, and curative in nature, intended to restore rights and remove hardships previously imposed by the 2009/10 UGCR. It held that the language and context of these amendments clearly indicated retrospective operation, including pending proceedings and appointments made before their promulgation.

In support, the Court cited established principles of statutory interpretation, including precedents that declaratory or clarificatory statutes are generally construed to have retrospective effect if such intention is clear from the language and context.

4. Treatment of competing arguments regarding retrospective effect and applicability

The appellants contended that the 2016 UGCR should be applied retrospectively to protect Dr. Jayakumar's appointment, emphasizing the UGC's power under Section 26(3) of the UGC Act to make regulations retrospective and the clear intention of the 2016 and 2018 amendments.

The respondents argued that the amendments were prospective only, and the Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of the High Court, which had held Dr. Jayakumar ineligible under the 2009/10 UGCR. They also contended that the UGC resolution of 2010 was invalid and could not be relied upon.

The Court rejected the respondents' arguments, holding that the amendments' language and context demonstrated a clear legislative intent to apply retrospectively. The Court underscored the duty of courts to apply such changes in law to pending and past cases to avoid absurd outcomes, such as invalidating appointments or stripping seniority and accrued benefits from long-serving faculty members.

5. Effect of prior case law and precedents

The Court extensively analyzed and applied prior judgments, notably:

- The P. Suseela case, which clarified the supremacy of the Central Government's position over the UGC's 2010 resolution and limited NET exemption to post-2009 Ph.D. holders under the 2009 Regulations.

- The Manoj Sharma case, which dealt with M.Phil. degrees obtained through distance education and the prospective effect of de-recognition under the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations. The Court found this precedent of limited applicability to the present facts.

- Principles of statutory interpretation from Rafiquennessa v. Lal Bahadur Chetri and Darshan Singh v. Ram Pal Singh, establishing that clear legislative language can confer retrospective effect.

- The doctrine of declaratory statutes from Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, which supports retrospective application where an amendment clarifies or explains prior law.

- The principle that courts must apply changes in law affecting pending proceedings, as elucidated in Noorunissa Begum v. Brij Kishore Sanghi.

6. Application of law to facts and final conclusions

Applying the above legal framework, the Court found that Dr. Jayakumar's appointment, though challenged under the 2009/10 UGCR, was protected by the 2016 and 2018 amendments which applied retrospectively. The Court held that the University's appointment was valid and lawful, and the High Court's concurrent findings to the contrary were set aside.

The Court reasoned that denying retrospective effect would lead to absurd results, including invalidating appointments of many pre-2009 Ph.D. holders who had been teaching for years and accrued seniority and benefits.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, and disposed of all related applications without costs.

Significant Holdings

"The 2009/10 UGCR made a break with the past inasmuch as only those who had earned their Ph.D. in terms of the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations or were to earn them under that regime were entitled to the exemption from taking the NET."

"The UGC's 2010 resolution could not provide any relief to candidates similarly situated as Dr. Jayakumar as it was at odds with the Central Government's directives which had to prevail in terms of the parent enactment [UGC Act]."

"The intention of the UGC to protect the pre-2009 Ph.D. holders, who may have been appointed in various universities and taught for many years, is evidently clear in the language adopted by the 2016 and 2018 UGCR."

"A statutory provision is held to be retroactive either when it is so declared by express terms, or the intention to make it retroactive clearly follows from the relevant words and the context in which they occur."

"When an enactment or an amendment is declaratory, curative or clarificatory, impelled by a felt need to make clear what was always intended, such amendment is usually meant to operate from an antecedent date, or to cover antecedent events."

"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."

"This court therefore, holds that Dr. Jayakumar's appointment is protected by the 2016 UGCR, which is applicable retrospectively."

"The appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside, and all applications are disposed of accordingly."