2024 (12) TMI 1603 - SC - Indian Laws

Appointment on the posts of Assistant Professor for interview in terms of Regs.4 and 10 read with Tables 3A and 3B of the 2018 Regulations - Applicability of regulation 10(f)(iii) while awarding marks for the teaching/post-doctoral experience in terms of clause 7 of table 3A for shortlisting of candidates to be called for interview for the post of Assistant Professors in universities - regulation 10(f)(iii) is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India or not - HELD THAT - Whenever a court is seized of a question of vires of a primary legislation/ subordinate legislation or a part of it a presumption of constitutionality is attached to the impugned provision and the courts would ordinarily strive to save the impugned provision from being declared ultra vires; however there could be situations where the subordinate legislation (like a rule or a regulation) is challenged on the ground of excessive delegation or is itself violative of the enabling/primary legislation under which it is framed or even breaches constitutional guarantees. Reading down of a provision is a subsidiary rule of interpretation of statutes which the courts tend to employ in situations to save the subordinate legislation like a rule or a regulation wherever possible and practical by reading it down by a benevolent interpretation rather than declaring it as unconstitutional or invalid. However it has been clarified that it is to be used sparingly and in limited circumstances. Additionally it is clear that the act of reading down a provision must be undertaken only if doing so can keep the operation of the statute within the purpose of the Act and constitutionally valid . Whether a selection board can fix a higher criterion for shortlisting candidates? - HELD THAT - In M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar 1994 (9) TMI 363 - SUPREME COURT this Court upheld shortlisting of candidates by the relevant Public Service Commission. In this case for the purpose of shortlisting a longer period of experience than the minimum prescribed was used as a criterion by it to call candidates for an interview. It is not open to the recruiting authorities to dilute in any manner the norms and standards prescribed by the statutory provisions or executive orders governing recruitment for screening aspirants to be called for interview; however it is always open to them to prescribe enhanced norms to have the zone of consideration for interview restricted to those aspirants satisfying the enhanced norms or higher criteria. In such cases however care has to be taken such that the enhanced norms or higher criteria are not susceptible to a challenge on the ground of arbitrariness or being contrary to the statutory provisions or executive orders governing recruitment. Whether relief can be granted in the absence of requisite pleadings? - HELD THAT - Without a doubt a court cannot in the absence of the requisite pleadings grant relief claimed by a party - while deciding a writ petition on the basis of affidavits the writ court s enquiry ought to be restricted to the case pleaded by the parties and the evidence that they have placed on record as part of the writ petition or the counter/reply affidavit as the case may be. Findings of the court have to be based on the pleadings and the evidence produced before it by the parties. It is well-nigh impermissible for the writ court to conjecture and surmise and make out a third case not pleaded by the parties based on arguments advanced in course of hearing. It is failed to comprehend why the High Court embarked on reading down Reg.10(f)(iii). After reading Reg.4 one had to first read Reg.10 as a whole and then clause by clause phrase by phrase and word by word. Had Regs.4 and 10 been so read there could be no difficulty in ascertaining the intent behind incorporation of Reg.10 (f)(iii) in the 2018 Regulations. The whole lot of aspirants having served nationally or internationally as Assistant Professor in institutions as specified were entitled to have such service counted for direct recruitment as an Assistant Professor on fulfilment of conditions in clauses (a)-(e) f(i) f(ii) and (g) with which the Division Bench High Court had no reservation - While focusing on Reg. 10(f)(iii) singularly the Division Bench missed the woods for the trees and the interpretation placed by it would certainly have the effect of (a) robbing aspirants having previous teaching experience of the nature specified from such experience being counted for the purpose of shortlisting and (b) requiring the selectors to be engaged in a long drawn process of interview of a large number of candidates aspiring for appointment on very few vacant posts of Assistant Professor. The Division Bench in the absence of the requisite pleadings and the ramifications that are closely associated with its decision ought to have adopted a hands-off approach in this regard. The impugned order is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. Consequently the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition of Respondent 1 is dismissed - Petition dismissed.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 ("2018 Regulations") applies to shortlisting candidates for the post of Assistant Professor.Whether Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the 2018 Regulations is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground of discrimination based on emoluments drawn during past contractual teaching service.Whether the High Court was justified in reading down Regulation 10(f)(iii) to exclude its application to appointments for the post of Assistant Professor.Whether a selection board or recruiting authority can fix enhanced or additional criteria for shortlisting candidates for interview beyond the minimum statutory qualifications.Whether relief can be granted by a court in the absence of requisite pleadings and evidence supporting such relief.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Court held that Regulation 10(f)(iii) applies to the post of Assistant Professor and governs the counting of past teaching experience for shortlisting candidates, as the regulation expressly mentions "Assistant Professor" and conditions for counting past service.The challenge to Regulation 10(f)(iii) under Article 14 was not upheld, as the regulation is not ultra vires; the distinction based on emoluments drawn during contractual service has a rational nexus with the objective of maintaining standards in higher education and is not arbitrary.The High Court erred in reading down Regulation 10(f)(iii) to exclude its application to Assistant Professor appointments, as it effectively deleted express words from the regulation, amounting to judicial legislation, which courts are not empowered to do.The Court affirmed that recruiting authorities may prescribe enhanced criteria for shortlisting candidates for interview, provided such criteria are rational, non-arbitrary, and consistent with statutory provisions; shortlisting is part of the selection process and does not alter eligibility criteria.The Court emphasized that courts cannot grant relief not pleaded or supported by evidence; findings must be based on pleadings and evidence on record, and courts should not entertain reliefs based on conjecture or unpleaded grounds.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied principles of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that clear and unambiguous statutory provisions must be given their natural and ordinary meaning without addition or deletion of words, citing authoritative precedents on interpretation and the limited scope of "reading down."The doctrine of "reading down" was considered applicable only when a provision is found ultra vires and can be saved by a restrictive interpretation; since Regulation 10(f)(iii) was not found unconstitutional, reading it down was impermissible.The Court noted that Regulation 10 governs counting of past services for direct recruitment and promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), including for Assistant Professors, and conditions therein (such as emoluments drawn) have a logical policy basis to ensure quality standards.The Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that teaching experience is surplusage for Assistant Professor appointments, holding that the regulation's scheme contemplates awarding marks for such experience to shortlist candidates, especially given the high volume of applicants.The Court observed that the High Court's reliance on a perceived anomaly regarding "post-doctoral experience" was not supported by pleadings or evidence and that the appropriate course would have been to seek clarification rather than decide on conjecture.The Court reiterated that recruiting authorities have discretion to adopt rational and transparent procedures for shortlisting candidates for interview, consistent with statutory norms, to effectively manage large applicant pools.The Court underscored the requirement of proper pleadings and evidence in writ proceedings, holding that courts cannot grant relief on unpleaded or unsupported grounds, to ensure fairness and proper adjudication.