Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for Guest Lecturers based on M.Phil. Degrees: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manoj Sharma (2018)

Date of the Judgment: January 25, 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 64

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.
Can M.Phil. degrees obtained through distance education before July 11, 2009, be considered valid for appointment as guest lecturers? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, focusing on the interpretation of University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations. This case revolves around the eligibility criteria for guest lecturers in Madhya Pradesh, specifically concerning M.Phil. degrees obtained through distance education before the implementation of the 2009 UGC Regulations. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves several individuals who had obtained M.Phil. degrees through distance education between 2007 and 2009. These individuals were working as guest lecturers in government and semi-government colleges in Madhya Pradesh. The Higher Education Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh issued an order on February 22, 2012, outlining the criteria for selecting guest lecturers. An advertisement was released on April 21, 2012, for these positions. However, the applications of those with M.Phil. degrees from distance education programs were rejected, leading to the filing of writ petitions.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The writ petitioners, whose applications were initially rejected, filed Writ Petition No. 3290 of 2012 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court issued an interim order on May 14, 2012, directing the acceptance of applications, with results to be kept in a sealed cover. A single judge of the High Court on August 29, 2012, ruled that candidates who had obtained their M.Phil. degrees before the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for the award of M.Phil./Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009, were eligible. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed this decision, but the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal on December 5, 2012. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the University Grants Commission (UGC) (Minimum Standards and Procedure for the award of M.Phil./Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009, specifically Regulation 5, which states:

“Regulation 5. Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations or any other Rule or regulation, for the time 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.”

The Supreme Court also considered Regulation 3 of the same regulations, which states:

“They shall come into force with effect from the date of their publication in the Gazette of India.”

Additionally, the Court examined the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Affiliated Universities and Institutions) (3rd Amendment) Regulations, 2009, which amended the qualifications for lecturers. The 2000 Regulations, specifically Regulation 1.3.3, stated:

“1.3.3 Lecturer
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.
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. degree. However, the candidates who have completed M. Phil. Degree or have submitted Ph.D. thesis in the concerned subject up to 31st December, 1993, are exempted from appearing in the NET examination.”

The 2009 amendment substituted the note in Regulation 1.3.3 with:

“NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.
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 Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.”

Arguments

Appellant (State of Madhya Pradesh)’s Arguments:

• The appellant contended that the UGC Regulations of 2009 explicitly prohibit M.Phil. and Ph.D. programs through distance education.
• Since the writ petitioners obtained their M.Phil. degrees through distance education, they do not meet the eligibility criteria for appointment as Guest Lecturers.
• The judgment of the High Court is unsustainable as it did not consider the UGC regulations properly.

Respondent (Manoj Sharma & Ors.)’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the UGC Regulations of 2009 are prospective in nature and do not invalidate degrees obtained before their enforcement on July 11, 2009.
• The M.Phil. degrees obtained by the writ petitioners before July 11, 2009, should be considered valid for appointment.
• The High Court correctly interpreted the regulations as not having retrospective effect.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether M.Phil. degrees obtained through distance education mode prior to 11.07.2009 are valid for appointment as Guest Lecturers.
2. Whether the High Court erred in holding that the UGC Regulations 2009 are prospective in nature.
3. Whether the eligibility of the writ petitioners needs to be examined in light of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment) Regulations, 2009.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• P. Susheela and Others vs. University Grants Commission and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 129 – Supreme Court of India: This case was relied upon to emphasize that NET qualification is a minimum requirement for lecturers, and exemptions are only for Ph.D. holders who obtained their degrees according to the 2009 regulations.
• Dr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav and Another versus University of Allahabad and Others – Allahabad High Court: This case was overruled by the Supreme Court in P. Susheela, which had upheld the challenge to the regulations.

Legal Provisions:

• University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for the award of M.Phil./Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009: The Court considered Regulation 5, which prohibits M.Phil./Ph.D. programs through distance education, and Regulation 3, which specifies the date of enforcement.
• UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Affiliated Universities and Institutions) (3rd Amendment) Regulations, 2009: The Court examined the amendments regarding NET/SLET as minimum eligibility conditions for lecturers.

Authority Table

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• P. Susheela and Others vs. University Grants Commission and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 129*: The Supreme Court relied on this judgment to emphasize that the National Eligibility Test (NET) is a mandatory qualification for lecturers. The exemption is only for Ph.D. holders who have obtained their degrees in compliance with the 2009 UGC regulations.
• Dr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav and Another versus University of Allahabad and Others*: This judgment of the Allahabad High Court was specifically overruled by the Supreme Court in *P. Susheela*, which upheld the validity of the 2009 UGC regulations.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the prospective nature of the UGC Regulations of 2009. The Court emphasized that the regulations were intended to apply from the date of their publication in the Gazette of India, and not retrospectively. This means that qualifications obtained before the enforcement date of the regulations should not be invalidated. The Court also considered the need to maintain standards in higher education, as reflected in the amendments to the minimum qualifications for lecturers. The Court aimed to strike a balance between upholding the validity of degrees obtained before the regulations and ensuring that the current standards for lecturers were met.

The court’s reasoning was based on the principle that regulations should generally apply prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise. The court also considered that the UGC’s objective was to maintain standards in higher education.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view that the UGC Regulations of 2009 are prospective in nature. The Court held that M.Phil. degrees obtained through distance education before July 11, 2009, cannot be invalidated by these regulations. However, the Court also noted that the eligibility of the writ petitioners should be examined in light of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment) Regulations, 2009, which mandate NET qualification for lecturers, with exemptions only for Ph.D. holders who obtained their degrees in compliance with the 2009 regulations.

The Court stated:

“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 are thus of the view that judgment of the High Court needs no interference in this appeal, however, the appeals are to be disposed off with the direction to consider the eligibility of the writ petitioner taking also 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 (Minimum Standards and Procedure) and Regulations 2009 of UGC(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment) were applicable.”

The Court did not find any error in the High Court’s judgment but directed that the eligibility of the writ petitioners be reconsidered based on the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment) Regulations, 2009. The Court clarified that while the M.Phil. degrees obtained before 2009 are valid, the candidates must also meet the NET qualification requirements as per the 2009 regulations, unless they hold a Ph.D. degree obtained under the 2009 UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure) Regulations.

Key Takeaways

• UGC Regulations of 2009 are prospective and do not invalidate M.Phil. degrees obtained through distance education before July 11, 2009.
• NET qualification is mandatory for lecturers, with exemptions only for Ph.D. holders who obtained their degrees under the 2009 UGC regulations.
• The eligibility of candidates for guest lecturer positions must be evaluated based on both the validity of their M.Phil. degrees and their compliance with the NET qualification requirements.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the concerned authorities to consider the eligibility of the writ petitioners for the post of Guest Lecturers, taking into account the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment) Regulations, 2009, in addition to the validity of their M.Phil. degrees.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the UGC Regulations of 2009 regarding M.Phil./Ph.D. programs through distance education are prospective in nature and do not invalidate degrees obtained prior to their enforcement. However, the judgment also clarifies that the minimum qualification for lecturers includes the NET exam, with exemptions only for Ph.D. holders who obtained their degrees under the 2009 UGC regulations. This judgment clarifies the interplay between the validity of prior qualifications and the current eligibility criteria for lecturers, ensuring that while past qualifications are respected, current standards are also maintained.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manoj Sharma clarifies that M.Phil. degrees obtained through distance education before July 11, 2009, are valid for consideration as guest lecturers. However, the Court also emphasizes that candidates must meet the NET qualification as per the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment) Regulations, 2009, unless they hold a Ph.D. degree obtained under the 2009 UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure) Regulations. This decision balances the protection of past qualifications with the need to maintain standards in higher education.