Supreme Court Clarifies the Role of Teaching Experience in Assistant Professor Appointments: Allahabad University vs. Geetanjali Tiwari (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 18 December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 1003

Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Can past teaching experience be a criterion for shortlisting candidates for the post of Assistant Professor, even if not a mandatory requirement? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the applicability of University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations in the context of direct recruitment for Assistant Professor positions. The court examined the validity of considering past teaching experience and the method of shortlisting candidates for interviews. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

Case Background

The case revolves around Geetanjali Tiwari, who applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit at Allahabad University and its affiliated colleges. She had prior teaching experience as a contractual faculty and guest lecturer. However, her experience was not counted for shortlisting purposes because she did not meet the criteria set by the university, which required that contractual faculty must have drawn a salary equal to that of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. This led to a series of legal challenges by Ms. Tiwari.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Ms. Tiwari initially filed a writ petition challenging Allahabad University’s decision not to consider her contractual teaching experience. This petition was rejected by a Single Judge. She then filed a Special Appeal against the order. Subsequently, she filed another writ petition challenging the validity of Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the UGC Regulations, which was also dismissed. A review petition was also filed against this dismissal. Another individual, Brahma Deo, also filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the Single Judge, leading to a Special Appeal. The High Court disposed of all these proceedings through a common judgment.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the interpretation 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. Specifically, the court examined:

• Regulation 4: This regulation specifies the minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor. It also states that the academic score as specified in Table 3A (for universities) and Table 3B (for colleges) shall be considered for shortlisting candidates for interview.
• Regulation 10: This regulation pertains to the counting of past services for direct recruitment and promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). It outlines the conditions under which previous service as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor can be counted.
  
  Specifically, Regulation 10(f)(iii) states that previous ad hoc, temporary, or contractual service would be counted only if the incumbent was drawing total gross emoluments not less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor.

The court also considered the relevance of Tables 3A and 3B, which provide the criteria for shortlisting candidates for interview based on academic scores, research publications, and teaching/post-doctoral experience. Clause 7 of these tables specifies that two marks are to be awarded for every year of teaching or post-doctoral experience.

The court analyzed how these regulations fit within the broader framework of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and the Constitution of India, particularly Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (Allahabad University and Allahabad Degree College):

• They argued that Regulation 10 applies to the post of Assistant Professor, as the post is expressly mentioned therein.
• They contended that the shortlisting process is crucial due to the large number of applicants.
• They asserted that even if Regulation 10 is not directly applicable, they can adopt its methodology as long as it is not arbitrary or discriminatory.
• They submitted that the High Court should have sought clarification from the UGC regarding the meaning of ‘post-doctoral experience’ instead of relying on a perceived anomaly.
• They relied on decisions such as A.P.J. Abdul kalam Technological University v. Jai Bharath College of Mngt. & Engg. Technology [(2021) 2 SCC 564] and Visveswaraiah Technological University v. Krishnendu Halder [(2011) 4 SCC 606], to argue that while dilution of norms is not permissible, prescribing enhanced norms is permissible.
• They also cited Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3184], emphasizing that a transparent, non-discriminatory procedure with a rational nexus to the objective is permissible.

Arguments on behalf of Respondent 1 (Geetanjali Tiwari):

• She argued that the emoluments-based distinction under Regulation 10(f)(iii) violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
• She contended that excluding qualified candidates with teaching experience undermines the objective of ensuring quality education.
• She supported the High Court’s view that since Assistant Professor is an entry-level post, previous experience is not necessary.
• She argued that the impugned order should hold good for colleges where the process is yet to be concluded, so that qualified candidates like her do not lose the opportunity to compete.

Ms. Tiwari argued that Regulation 10(f)(iii) is discriminatory as it creates a hierarchy among teachers based on their salary, which has no correlation with teaching experience. She claimed that this adversely impacts qualified and experienced candidates who did not draw a salary equivalent to that of a regular Assistant Professor.

Submissions Table:

Innovativeness of the Argument: The respondent’s argument that the emoluments-based distinction under Regulation 10(f)(iii) violates Article 14 of the Constitution by creating a hierarchy among teachers based on salary was a novel approach to challenge the regulation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in reading down Regulation 10 of the 2018 Regulations, thereby excluding its applicability to the post of Assistant Professor.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several cases and legal principles while arriving at its decision:

Cases Relied Upon:

Legal Provisions Considered:

• 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: The court analyzed Regulations 4 and 10, along with Tables 3A and 3B, to determine the criteria for shortlisting candidates for the post of Assistant Professor.
• University Grants Commission Act, 1956: The court noted that the 2018 Regulations are subordinate legislation under this Act.
• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: The court considered the arguments of the respondent that Regulation 10(f)(iii) violated Article 14.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s order. The court held that:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Girdhari Lal & sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur [(1986) 2 SCC 237]* and Reserve Bank of India (supra)* for the principles of statutory interpretation.
• The Court used Sri Jeyaram Educational Trust v. A.G. Syed Mohideen [(2010) 2 SCC 513]* and Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 323]* to emphasize the limitations on judicial interpretation, stating that courts cannot add to or delete from a statute.
• The Court referred to CST v. Radhakrishan [(1979) 2 SCC 249]*, Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress [1991 Supp (1) SCC 600]*, Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Govt. of A.P. [(1999) 4 SCC 458]*, B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. [(1999) 9 SCC 700]*, State of Rajasthan v. Sanyam Lodha [(2011) 13 SCC 262]*, Subramanian Swamy v. Raju [(2014) 8 SCC 390]*, and Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India v. Shanmugavelu [(2024) 6 SCC 641]* to explain the doctrine of reading down and its limitations.
• The Court relied on M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar [(1994) 6 SCC 293]* to uphold the shortlisting of candidates based on a longer period of experience.
• The Court used Pt. Shamboo Nath Tikoo v. S. Gian Singh [1995 Supp. (2) SCC 266]*, Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal [(2008) 17 SCC 491]*, Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Chand Behari Kapoor [(1998) 7 SCC 469]*, and Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC 534]* to emphasize the importance of pleadings in legal proceedings.
• The Court cited A.P.J. Abdul kalam Technological University v. Jai Bharath College of Mngt. & Engg. Technology [(2021) 2 SCC 564]*, Visveswaraiah Technological University v. Krishnendu Halder [(2011) 4 SCC 606]*, and Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3184]* to support the view that enhanced norms for shortlisting are permissible.

The Court emphasized that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by resorting to judicial legislation and reading down Regulation 10(f)(iii) without finding it ultra vires. It also noted that the High Court should have sought clarification on the meaning of ‘post-doctoral experience’ instead of relying on a perceived anomaly.

The Court observed that the High Court’s interpretation would deprive candidates with past teaching experience of marks for shortlisting purposes, which was not the intention of the UGC. The Court also stated that recruiting authorities are entitled to adopt a method for shortlisting candidates on a rational and reasonable basis when selection is based solely on an interview.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The need to adhere to the plain language of the statute and regulations without adding or deleting words.
• The principle that courts should not legislate or rewrite laws.
• The importance of maintaining the integrity of the shortlisting process for recruitment.
• The need to respect the expertise of regulatory bodies like the UGC in setting qualifications and criteria for appointments.
• The principle that reading down a provision is only permissible if the provision is found to be ultra vires.

The Court also emphasized the importance of proper pleadings and evidence in writ petitions and that courts should not make out a third case not pleaded by the parties. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the High Court did not find the regulation to be ultra vires but still read it down.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Table:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation, stating that it amounted to judicial legislation. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have read down Regulation 10(f)(iii) without finding it ultra vires. The Court also noted that the High Court should have sought clarification on the meaning of ‘post-doctoral experience’ instead of relying on a perceived anomaly.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that courts should not add or delete words from a statute and that the intention of the legislature should be followed. The Court also emphasized that the shortlisting process is important and should be based on rational and reasonable criteria.

The Supreme Court considered the arguments made by both sides and concluded that the High Court’s interpretation was incorrect. The Court held that Regulation 10 applies to the post of Assistant Professor and that the High Court should not have read down Regulation 10(f)(iii). The Court also stated that the High Court should have sought clarification on the meaning of ‘post-doctoral experience’ instead of relying on a perceived anomaly.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the reasoning and the outcome. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Court’s decision has potential implications for future cases involving the interpretation of UGC regulations and the shortlisting of candidates for academic positions. The decision also clarifies that the courts should not overstep their limits by resorting to judicial legislation.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines but reaffirmed the existing principles of statutory interpretation and the limitations on judicial review.

Key Takeaways

• Past teaching experience, as defined in Regulation 10 of the UGC Regulations, can be a valid criterion for shortlisting candidates for the post of Assistant Professor.
• Courts should not read down a statutory provision unless it is found to be ultra vires.
• Recruiting authorities have the right to adopt rational and reasonable criteria for shortlisting candidates, especially when selections are based solely on interviews.
• The plain language of statutes and regulations should be adhered to, without adding or deleting words.
• Proper pleadings and evidence are essential in writ petitions.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not provide any specific directions, but the effect of the judgment is that Allahabad University and other institutions must follow the UGC Regulations as they are written, including considering past teaching experience for shortlisting purposes as per Regulation 10.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court erred in reading down Regulation 10 of the UGC Regulations, and that past teaching experience can be a valid criterion for shortlisting candidates for the post of Assistant Professor. This case reaffirms the principles of statutory interpretation and the limitations on judicial review. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the existing position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Allahabad University vs. Geetanjali Tiwari clarifies that past teaching experience, as defined in the UGC Regulations, can be a valid criterion for shortlisting candidates for the post of Assistant Professor. The court emphasized that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reading down Regulation 10 without finding it ultra vires and that the plain language of statutes and regulations should be adhered to. This decision reinforces the importance of following established legal principles and respecting the expertise of regulatory bodies in setting qualifications and criteria for appointments.