THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusMANOJ SHARMA & ORS.

                         [2018] 1 S.C.R. 779                              779


          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.                              A
                                  v.
                    MANOJ SHARMA & ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal No. 871 of 2018)
                         JANUARY 25, 2018                                 B
          [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
       University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and
Procedure for the award of M.Phil./Ph.D Degree) Regulations,
2009 – Regulations 3, 5 – Operation of – 2009 Regulations
                                                                          C
prohibiting any university, institution or deemed university from
conducting M.Phil./Ph.D. through distance education mode,
published in Gazette of India on 11.7.2009 – Writ petitioners-
respondents herein had passed M.Phil. from different universities
under distance education before 11.07.2009 – Applications invited
by appellant-State for the post of Guest Lecturer in different subjects   D
– Applications of writ petitioners were not accepted on the ground
that they were not qualified as they had obtained M.Phil. Degree
through distance education programme – Single Judge of High
Court disposed of the writ petitions holding that those candidates
who cleared M.Phil. before the 2009 Regulations through distance
                                                                          E
education mode, are eligible and their result be declared –Writ appeal
dismissed by Division Bench – Held: Regulation 3, of 2009
Regulations provides for enforcement of the Regulation from the
date of their publication in the Gazette of India – Thus, it is clear
that regulations are prospective in nature and may not affect the
qualifications granted by an university or institution prior to the       F
enforcement of the regulation – Single Judge rightly directed the
State to consider the case of writ petitioners on the basis of M.Phil.
degree – However, such direction of Single Judge be considered
taking into consideration the fact that in view of UGC(Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment) Regulations, 2009, also published
                                                                          G
in the Gazette on 11.7.2009, National Eligibility Test (NET) is now
minimum qualification for appointment of Lecturer and exemption
granted to M.Phil. degree holders have been withdrawn and
exemption is allowed only to those Ph.D. degree holders who have
obtained the Ph.D. degree in accordance with 2009 Regulations –
UGC(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career                     H
                                  779
780            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A     Advancement of Teachers in Affiliated Universities and Institutions)
      (3rd amendment) Regulations, 2009 .
            Disposing of the appeals, the Court
            HELD: 1.1 Regulation 3 under University Grants
      Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for the award
B     of M.Phil./Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009 [Regulations 2009
      of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure)], clearly provided
      for enforcement for the regulation from the date of their publication
      in the Gazette of India. Thus, it is clear that regulations are
      prospective in nature and may not affect the qualifications granted
      by an university or institution prior to the enforcement of the
C     regulation. There is no error in the judgment of the High Court.
      Single Judge had thus rightly directed the respondent to consider
      the case of the writ petitioners on the basis of M.Phil. degree
      and declare the result alongwith other candidates. [Paras 12, 13]
      [784-F-H; 785-A]
D           1.2 There is another issue which needs to be noticed at
      this juncture. On the same day when regulations pertaining to
      Minimum Standards and Procedure for the award of M.Phil./Ph.D
      Degree were published, another regulations were published in
      the Gazette on the same day i.e. on 11.7.2009, namely, UGC
E     (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career
      Advancement of Teachers in Affiliated Universities and
      Institutions) (3rd amendment) Regulations, 2009. [Para 14][785-B]
            1.3 University Grants Commission had issued regulations
      relating to minimum qualification for the post of lecturer in the
      year 2000 which regulations were amended in 2002 and 2006.
F     According to Regulations 2000, Regulation 1.3.3 provides for
      qualification for Lecturer inter alia stating that candidates should
      have cleared the eligibility test (NET) for lecturers conducted by
      the UGC. It also stated that NET shall remain compulsory
      requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates
G     having Ph.D. degree. However, inter alia it was also stated that
      the candidates who have completed M. Phil. Degree are exempted
      from appearing in the NET examination. [Para 15] [785-C-D, E-
      H]
            1.4 The said regulations were amended and amendments
      dated 11.07.2009 were relevant whereas the note as contained
H
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. MANOJ                      781
                  SHARMA & ORS.

in Regulation 1.3.3 has been substituted. The amendment as made     A
in the minimum qualification, now provides that the exemption
from NET shall be given to the Ph.D. degree holders, only when
Ph.D. degree has been awarded to them in compliance with the
Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure).
The above provision thus, made it mandatory that for lecturers
                                                                    B
NET qualification is necessary and exemption shall be granted
to those Ph.D. degree holders who have obtained Ph.D. degree
in accordance with the Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
Standards and Procedure). The purpose and object of the above
amendments in both Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
Standards and Procedure) as well as Regulations 2009 of UGC         C
(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment) is not far to seek.
[Paras 16, 17] [785-G; 786-C-E]
      1.5 Thus, NET qualification is now minimum qualification
for appointment of Lecturer and exemption granted to M.Phil.
degree holders have been withdrawn and exemption is allowed         D
only to those Ph.D. degree holders who have obtained the Ph.D.
degree in accordance with 11.7.2009 regulations, namely,
Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure).
Although, this aspect was not noticed by the High Court but since
the Single Judge has directed the consideration of the case of
the writ petitioners on the basis of M.Phil. degree which was       E
obtained by them by distance education mode prior to 2009, it is
necessary that their eligibility for the post be examined taking
into consideration the Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment). The advertisement and selection
for Guest Lecturers having been conducted in the year 2012 when     F
both the Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and
Procedure) and Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment) were applicable. [Para 20] [788-
D-F]
      Manoj Sharma and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
      (Decision of Madhya Pradesh)– referred to.                    G
      Dr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav and Anr. vs. University of
      Allahabad and Ors. (Decision dated 6.04.2012 of
      Allahabd High Court) – not approved.
      P. Susheela and Ors. vs. University Grants Commission
                                                                    H
782             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A            and Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 129 : [2015] 5 SCR 643 –
             referred to.
                              Case Law Reference
      [2015] 5 SCR 643                 referred to             Para 18
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 871 of
B     2018
             From the Judgment and Order dated 05.12.2012 of the High Court
      of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in Writ Appeal No. 712 of 2012.
                                      WITH
             Civil Appeal No. 872 of 2018
C
             Ms. Prachi Mishra, Arjun Garg, Chaitanya, Mishra Saurabh, Advs.
      for the Appellants.
             Nikhilesh Ramachandran, Adv. for the Respondents.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D           ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
             2. These two appeals have been filed against the identically
      worded judgments of High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 05.12.2012
      and 17.01.2013 respectively dismissing the writ appeal filed by the State
      of Madhya Pradesh. The facts and issue in both the appeals being
E     common, it is sufficient to refer to the facts and pleadings in civil appeal
      arising out of SLP (C) No. 26528 of 2017 for deciding both the appeals.
      The parties shall be referred to as described in the writ petition.
             3. The writ petitioners had passed M.Phil. from different
      universities under distance education (between the year 2007 to 2009)
      before 11.07.2009. Writ petitioners were engaged as guest lecturers in
F
      different Government/Semi Government Colleges since before the year
      2009. Higher Education Department of the Government of Madhya
      Pradesh issued an order dated 22.02.2012 on the subject “Arrangement
      of Guest Lecturers in Government Colleges for the remaining period of
      Academic Session 2011-12 and upcoming sessions”.
G
             4. The Government order provided for criteria for selection under
      which various marks were allocated for Ph.D and NET/SET, M.Phil.
      and NET/SET. Regional Additional Director, Higher Education, Gwalior
      Madhya Pradesh issued an advertisement dated 21.04.2012 inviting
      application for the post of Guest Lecturer in different subjects. Writ
H     Petitioners had applied for different posts of Guest Lecturers through
    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. MANOJ                                 783
         SHARMA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

online mode. Their applications were not accepted. On inquiry, they             A
came to know that those candidates who had obtained M.Phil. degree
through distance education programme are not qualified.
       5. Writ Petition No. 3290 of 2012, Manoj Sharma and others v.
State of Madhya Pradesh was filed wherein High Court passed an
interim order on 14.05.2012 and directing the respondents to accept the         B
application form of the candidates and the result of the candidates was
to be kept in the seal-cover.
       6. Writ Petitioners on the strength of the interim order submitted
their applications. Writ Petition No. 3290 of 2012, Manoj Sharma and
others versus State of Madhya Pradesh was finally disposed off by               C
learned Single Judge on 29.08.2012, holding that those candidates who
have cleared M.Phil. qualification before the Regulations 2009, namely,
University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for
the award of M.Phil./Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter shall
be referred to as “Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and
Procedure”) are eligible and their result be declared. Learned Single           D
Judge issued following directions:
        “It is further reported that although petitioner’s case was
        considered, but by way of interim order, it was directed that
        his result will not be declared. Now final order is passed.
        Petitioner is found eligible, therefore, respondents shall              E
        consider the case of the petitioner as eligible on the basis of
        the aforesaid Master of Philosophy certificate and declare
        the result alongwith other candidates.”
       7. The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a writ appeal against the
judgments of learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court          F
vide its judgment dated 05.12.2012 dismissed the appeal. The State is in
appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench.
       8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the
regulations framed by the University Grants Commission, Regulations
2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure), the M.Phil./Ph.D.                G
Programmes conducted through distance education are not acceptable.
He submits that since M.Phil. degree of the writ petitioners was by
distance education mode, they do not fulfil the qualification for appointment
as Guest Lecturer and the judgment of the learned Single Judge and
Division Bench taking a contrary view is unsustainable.
                                                                                H
784            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A           9. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent at the time
      of hearing. Although a counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondent
      No. 1, Manoj Sharma has been filed, supporting the view taken by the
      learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. We have considered the
      submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
B           10.The Regulations 2009 of UGC on Minimum Standards and
      Procedure were published in Gazette of India on 11.7.2009. Regulation
      5 which is relevant, is to the following effect:
              “Regulation 5. Notwithstanding anything contained in these
              Regulations or any other Rule or regulation, for the time
C             being in force, no University, Institution, Deemed to be
              University and College/Institution of National Importance
              shall conduct M.Phil and Ph.D Programmes through distance
              education mode.”
              11. Learned Single Judge and Division Bench took the view that
D     according to Regulations 2009 of UGC on Minimum Standards and
      Procedure, it was only with effect from 11.7.2009 that any university,
      institution or deemed university were prohibited from conducting M.Phil./
      Ph.D. through distance education mode hence, degree obtained prior to
      enforcement of said regulation are not washed out. The High Court has
      held that Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure)
E     are prospective in nature and shall not operate retrospectively. Learned
      Single Judge took the view that Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
      Standards and Procedure) being not retrospective shall not wipe out the
      M.Phil. qualification already acquired by the writ petitioners prior to
      above-said regulation.
F           12.Regulation 3 under Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
      Standards and Procedure), clearly provides for enforcement for the
      regulation from the date of their publication in the Gazette of India.
      Regulation 3 is as follows:
              “They shall come into force with effect from the date of their
G             publication in the Gazette of India.”
             13.Thus, it is clear that regulations are prospective in nature and
      may not affect the qualifications granted by an university or institution
      prior to the enforcement of the regulation. We thus do not find any error
      in the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Learned Single
H     Judge had thus rightly directed the respondent to consider the case of
    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. MANOJ                                785
         SHARMA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

the writ petitioners on the basis of M.Phil. degree and declare the result     A
alongwith other candidates.
       14.There is another issue which needs to be noticed at this juncture.
On the same day when regulations pertaining to Minimum Standards
and Procedure for the award of M.Phil./Ph.D Degree were published,
another regulations were published in the Gazette on the same day i.e.         B
on 11.7.2009, namely, UGC(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment
and Career Advancement of Teachers in Affiliated Universities and
Institutions) (3rd amendment) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter shall be
referred to as “Regulations 2009 of UGC(Minimum Qualifications for
Appointment”).
                                                                               C
      15.University Grants Commission had issued regulations relating
to minimum qualification for the post of lecturer in the year 2000 which
regulations were amended in 2002 and 2006. According to Regulations
2000, Regulation 1.3.3 provides for qualification for Lecturer as follows:
          “1.3.3 Lecturer                                                      D
        Good academic record with at least 55% of the marks or, an
        equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades
        O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the Master’s degree level, in the
        relevant subject from an Indian University, or, an equivalent
        degree from a foreign university.                                      E
        Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates should
        have cleared the eligibility test (NET) for lecturers conducted
        by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC.
        Note: NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for
        appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph.D.               F
        degree. However, the candidates who have completed M.
        Phil. Degree or have submitted Ph.D. thesis in the concerned
        subject up to 31 st December, 1993, are exempted from
        appearing in the NET examination.”
       16.As noted above, the above-mentioned regulations were                 G
amended and amendments dated 11.7.2009 were relevant whereas the
note as contained in Regulation 1.3.3 was substituted by following:
        “NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition
        for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities
        /Colleges/Institutions.                                                H
786             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A             Provided, however, that candidates, who are or have been
              awarded Ph.D. Degree in compliance of the “University
              Grants Commission(minimum standards and procedure for
              award of Ph.D Degree), Regulation 2009, shall be exempted
              from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of
              NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant
B
              Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges /
              Institutions.”
             17.It has to be noticed that the amendment as made in the
      minimum qualification, now provides that the exemption from NET shall
      be given to the Ph.D. degree holders, only when Ph.D. degree has been
C     awarded to them in compliance with the Regulations 2009 of UGC
      (Minimum Standards and Procedure). The above provision thus, made it
      mandatory that for lecturers NET qualification is necessary and exemption
      shall be granted to those Ph.D. degree holders who have obtained Ph.D.
      degree in accordance with the Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
D     Standards and Procedure). The purpose and object of the above
      amendments in both Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards
      and Procedure) as well as Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
      Qualifications for Appointment) is not far to seek. There has been
      challenge to amendments made in Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum
      Qualifications for Appointment)in so far as it denied the benefit to Ph.D
E     degree holders who had obtained Ph.D prior to 11.7.2009. Writ Petitions
      were filed in different High Courts challenging the regulations on different
      grounds including that regulations are arbitrary and violative of Article
      14 which discriminate the Ph.D. degree holders who have obtained Ph.D.
      degree prior to 11.7.2009 and those who obtained the degree after
F     11.7.2009 in accordance with Regulations 2009 of UGC on Minimum
      Standards and Procedure.
             18.The challenge to regulations were repelled by different High
      Courts whereas Allahabad High Court vide its judgment dated 6.4.2012
      in Dr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav and Another versus University of
G     Allahabad and Others has upheld the challenge. Appeals were filed
      against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court and
      Madras High Court by the candidates whose writ petitions were dismissed
      as well as against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated
      06.04.2012, upholding the contention of the candidates. This Court decided
      all the appeals by its judgment reported in P. Susheela and Others
H     versus University Grants Commission and Others, (2015) 8 SCC
    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. MANOJ                             787
         SHARMA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

129. This Court upheld the judgment of the High Courts of Rajasthan,        A
Madras and Delhi and set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High
Court dated 6.4.2012, upholding that the amendments made in Regulations
2009 of UGC(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment) were valid and
there is a valid classification between the candidates who have obtained
degree prior to Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and
                                                                            B
Procedure) and those who obtained the degree in accordance with the
above-said regulation.
      19. Thus, rejecting the contention of the private respondent,
following was laid down in paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 18:
       “16. Similar is the case on facts here. A vested right would         C
       arise only if any of the appellants before us had actually
       been appointed to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professors.
       Till that date, there is no vested right in any of the appellants.
       At the highest, the appellants could only contend that they
       have a right to be considered for the post of Lecturer/
       Assistant Professor. This right is always subject to minimum         D
       eligibility conditions, and till such time as the appellants are
       appointed, different conditions may be laid down at different
       times. Merely because an additional eligibility condition in
       the form of a NET test is laid down, it does not mean that
       any vested right of the appellants is affected, nor does it          E
       mean that the regulation laying down such minimum eligibility
       condition would be retrospective in operation. Such condition
       would only be prospective as it would apply only at the stage
       of appointment. It is clear, therefore, that the contentions of
       the private appellants before us must fail.
                                                                            F
       17. One of the learned counsel for the petitioners argued,
       based on the language of the direction of the Central
       Government dated 12-11-2008 that all that the Government
       wanted UGC to do was to “generally” prescribe NET as a
       qualification. But this did not mean that UGC had to
       prescribe this qualification without providing for any               G
       exemption. We are unable to accede to this argument for the
       simple reason that the word “generally” precedes the word
       “compulsory” and it is clear that the language of the
       direction has been followed both in letter and in spirit by
       the UGC regulations of 2009 and 2010.
                                                                            H
788             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A             18. The arguments based on Article 14 equally have to be
              rejected. It is clear that the object of the directions of the
              Central Government read with the UGC Regulations of 2009/
              2010 are to maintain excellence in standards of higher
              education. Keeping this object in mind, a minimum eligibility
              condition of passing the national eligibility test is laid down.
B
              True, there may have been exemptions laid down by UGC in
              the past, but the Central Government now as a matter of
              policy feels that any exemption would compromise the
              excellence of teaching standards in universities/ colleges/
              institutions governed by the UGC. Obviously, there is nothing
C             arbitrary or discriminatory in this - in fact it is a core function
              of UGC to see that such standards do not get diluted.”
             20. Thus, from the above judgment, it is clear that NET qualification
      is now minimum qualification for appointment of Lecturer and exemption
      granted to M.Phil. degree holders have been withdrawn and exemption
D     is allowed only to those Ph.D. degree holders who have obtained the
      Ph.D. degree in accordance with 11.7.2009 regulations, namely,
      Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure).
      Although, this aspect has not been noticed by the High Court but since
      the learned Single Judge has directed the consideration of the case of
      the writ petitioner on the basis of M.Phil. degree which was obtained by
E     them by distance education mode prior to 2009, it is necessary that their
      eligibility for the post be examined taking into consideration the
      Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment).
      The advertisement and selection for Guest Lecturers having been
      conducted in the year 2012 when both the Regulations 2009 of UGC
F     (Minimum Standards and Procedure) and Regulations 2009 of
      UGC(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment) were applicable.
             21.There is nothing on the record as to whether after the judgment
      of the learned Single Judge, writ petitioners’ result was declared and
      they were selected or appointed. This Court has also passed an interim
G     order of 16.08.2013 staying the operation of the judgment of the High
      Court for the period of three months. No further orders have been passed
      extending the interim order.
             22.We are thus of the view that judgment of the High Court needs
      no interference in this appeal, however, the appeals are to be disposed
H     off with the direction to consider the eligibility of the writ petitioner taking
    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. MANOJ                              789
         SHARMA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

also into consideration the Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum                 A
Qualifications for Appointment).
       23.Both the appeals are disposed off accordingly.


Divya Pandey                                          Appeals disposed of.   B




                                                                             C




                                                                             D




                                                                             E




                                                                             F




                                                                             G




                                                                             H