UNIVERSITY OF DELHI A

v.

RAJ SINGH

SEPTEMBER 8, 1994

B

(AM. AHMADI AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.]

Constitution of lndi<~Seventh Schedule, List I, Entry 66-University

Grants Commission Act 1956-Sections 14 r/w 26(1)(e) and (o) and

12-Vniversity Grants Commission( Qualifications required of a person to be

appointed to the teaching staff of a University and institutions affiliated .to it) C

Regulations, 1991-Regulations 2 and J-National eligi,bility test for lec­

turers-UGC prescribing eligi,bility test as a qualification to be appointed to

teaching Posts-Relaxation of prescribed qualification with prior approval of

UGC-Failure to comply with the recommended qualifications attracting with­

holding of grants made by UGC to the University-Whether the test impinges D

on power of University to select its teachers and ther<Jf ore beyond the powers

invested in the UGC-Held, UGC has wide-rangi,ng powers to act for the

determination and maintenance of standards of teaching-Written eligi,bility

test, based on recommendations of commissions and committees of

educationists to ensure standards of teaching, is within the competence of E

UGC to prescribe-Held, further, regulations prescribe test to determine basic

eligi,bility, and there is no element of selection in the process-University may

still select

lecturers by written test and interview or either--University's

autonomy is not entrenched upon by the Regulations---Delhi University Act

1922.

F

Constitution of India-Seventh Schedule, List I. Entries 63 and 66-University Grants Commission Act 1956-Section 2lf)-D-elhi University

Act 199~Applicability of later Act to institutions mentioned ~r entry 63,

including Delhi University-Held, Delhi University and other Universities

covered by entry 63 are subject to the regulation of the UGC for purposes of G

coordination and determination of standards-It must be assumed that Par­

liament was aware of the provisions of the Delhi University Act when it

enacted the later legislation-Held, further, any other view would render

otiose, qua the universities covered by Entry 63 not only the UGC Act but

Entry 66 itself-Also, were Entry 66 to operate only. vis-a-vis institutions other

than those mentioned in Entry 66; the UGC Act in its entirety would not apply H

217

218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A to Delhi University, including the provisions relating to grants-Interpretation

of statutes-Harmonious Construction.

Interpretation of Statutes-University Grants Commission ( Qualifica­

tions

required of a person

t<rbe appointed to the teaching staff of a University

and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991-Regulation 2-Mandatory

B or directory-Held, regulations prescribing eligibility test recommendatory in

character.

Interpretation of Statutes-University Grants Commission Act

1956-Sections 12-A, 26( 1 )( e )-"Qualifications''-Definition of Qualification

C in Section 12-A(l)(d), held, is confined to the provisions of Section 12-A and

does not apply to Section 26(1)(e)-Were it intended to apply throughout the

Act held, it would have found place in definition section.

The University Grants Commission (Qualifications required of a

person to be appointed to the teaching staff of a university and institutions

D affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991 were notified on 19 September, 1991. They

prescribed

that no person shall be appointed

t~ a teaching post in any

University, institution or college unless he qualified in a written test to

determine eligibility. They provided that a University may relax the

prescribed qualification with the prior approval of the UGC. Failure to

E comply with this recommendation would lead to withholding the grants

proposed to be made

by the

UGC to the University. The Regulations were

to have protective application.

F

G

H

In a writ petition filed in the High Court by an aspirant for appoint·

ment as lecturer,

it was contended for the Delhi

University that the

Regulations were beyond the competence of the UGC; that, in any event,

the Regulations were directory

and

not mandatory; that the Delhi Univer­

sity was an autonomous body and no condition of eligibility could be

imposed upon it. The High Court rejected the case of the Delhi University,

and upheld the Regulations.

In appeal before this Court, the Delhi University reiterated its

contentions.

It was also

a~ed that the definition of University in the UGC

Act 1956 ha'd to be read not with reference to the UGC Act as a whole, but

only with reference to such provisions of the UGC Act as deal with funding.

For the UGC it was contended that the Regulations were based on

UNIVERSITY OF DEUU v. RAT SINGH 219

various reports and recommendations of committees and commissions of A

educationists and expert bodies; the Regulations were only a conditions of

eligibility

had did not entrench upon the

University's right to select; and

the implementation of the scheme was a condition for revision of pay scales

as recommended

by the Mehrotra Committee, as per letter dated 17 June,

1987 written by the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resour- B

ces Development to the

UGC, and that it was a matter of National policy.

For the original writ petition, it was further argued that there was

no conflict between Entries

63 and 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule,

and that the concept of autonomy of a

University could not be so construed

as to make Entry

66 otiose qua university that fall under Entry 63. C

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. The Regulations made under the

UGC Act 1956 are

within the competence of the UGC and are authorized by Sections 12, 14

and 26(e) and (g). The UGC Act was enacted under entry 66 of the D

Constitution, and a duty expressly cast on the UGC to take "all such steps

as it may think fit ..•..... for the determination and maintenance of stand­

ards of teaching". These are wide-ranging powers, and comprehend the

power to conduct a written test to establish minimal proficiency for hold-

ing the post of lecturer. [239-G-H, 240-A] E

2. The Delhi University Act 1922 was on the statute book when the

UGC Act was enacted by Parliament under entry 66 of List I. It must be

assumed that Parliament was aware of the provisions of the Delhi Univer­

sity Act when it enacted the UGC Act, 1956, particularly because the power

to enact legislation concerning the Delhi University lay with Parliament F

under entry 63 of List I. Section 2(f) of the UGC Act 1956 makes it clear

that the Universities covered by entry 63 of List I were consciously made

subject

to the regulation of the

UGC in so far as co

7

ordination and

determination of standards were conce~ed. To take any other view would

be to make

otiose qua the

Universities covered by entry 63, not only the G

U.G.C. Act but entry 66 itself. [239-C-D]

3. The argument

that Section 2(f) of the

UGC Act defining University

had to be read not as a whole but only with reference to such provisions

of the UGC Act as deal with funding must be rejected. If there were merit

in the argument

that entry 66 operated only vis-a-vis institutions other H

220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A then those mentioned in entry 63, the UGC Act in its entirety would not

apply to the Delhi University and the Delhi University would, consequently,

not be entitled to receive any grant thereunder. (239-E]

4. The word "qualification" in s. 26(1)(e) is of wide amplitude and

would include the requirement of passing a basic eligibility test prescribed

B by the U.G.C. It is wider than the word "qualification" defined in section

12A(l)(d), which in expressly stated terms applies only to the provisions

of Section 12A. Were this definition of qualification, as meaning a degree

or any other qualification awarded by a University, to have been intended

to apply throughout the Act,

it would have found place in the definition

C section, namely,

Section 2. (240-H, 241-A]

5. The provisions of clause 2 of the ~aid Regulations are recommen­

datory in character. The Regulation~ -do not impinge upon the power of

the University to select its teachers. 'fhe University may still select its

lecturers

by written test and interview or either.

Successful candidates at

D the basic eligibility test prescribed by the said Regulations are awarded no

marks

or ranks and, therefore, all who

ha'\'e cleared it stand at the same

level. There is, therefore, no element of selection in the process. The

University's autonomy is not entrenched upon by the said Regulations.

E

F

(241-G-H, 242-A-B]

6. There must be highly qualified men and women in the country who,

to serve their chosen field would be willing to become lecturers. There is not

doubt

that they would appreciate the sound objective of the said

Regula­

tions and would, therefore, not consider it infra dig to appear at and clear

the test prescribed thereby.

In the case of eminently qualified men and

women, no doubt the

UGC would not hesitate to grant prior approval to the

relaxation of the requirement of clearing the test. (242-C-D]

7. It is necessary to consider whether or not the letter dated 17 June,

1987, addressed

by the Department of Education, Ministry of Human

Resource development, Government of India to the

UGC can be said to be

G a directive under Section 20 of the UGC Act C(mceming a question of policy

relating to national purposes. (242-E]

8. The Delhi

University may, therefore, appoint as alectu~e~ ln itself

and its affiliated colleges one who has cleared the test prescribed by the

H said Regulation; or it may seek prior approval for the relaxation of this

-

UNNERSITYOFDEUil v. RAJSINGH[BHARUCHA,J.] 221

requirement in a specific case; or it may appoint as lecturer one does not A

meet this requirement without having first obtained the UGC's approval,

in which event

it would, it if failed to show cause for its failure to abide

by the said Regulations to the satisfaction of the

UGC, forfeit its grant

from the UGC. If, however, it did show cause to the satisfaction of the

UGC, it not only would not forfeit its grant but the appointment made B

without obtaining the UGC's prior approve would stand regularised.

[242-H, 243-A]

Gujaraj University, Ahmedabad v. Krishna Ranganath Mudhoikar,

[1963] Supp. 1 SCR 112 and Osmania University Teachers Association v.

State of Andhra Pradesh, [1987] 3 SCR 949, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1819 of

1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.10.93 of the Delhi High

Court Court in C.W.P. No. 3570 of 1992.

P.P. Rao, V.P. Chowdhary, Jitendra Sharma, P. Gaur, Ms. G. Dara

and R. Sasiprabhu for the Appellants. ·

Ms. Kumud L. Das, S.B. Upadhyay and RD. Upadhyay for the

Intervenor: applicant Nos.

2-8 &

10 & in I.A. No. 15.

B.K. Pal for the Intervenor In I.A. No. 15.

M.P. Jha, Ajit Kumar Sinha for the Intervenor in I.A. Nos. 12 & 13.

Milan K. Banerajee, Attorney General and Gaurab Banerjee, Rathin

c

D

E

Das for the U.G.C. F

A. Sharan for the Intervenor C.S.I.R.

AK. Ganguli and A.D.N. Rao for the D.U.R.A.

A.K. Ganguli and Navin Prakash for the Respondent No. 1. G

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BHARUCHA,

J.

Upon a writ petition filed by Raj Singh (the first

respondent in this appeal) the Delhi High Court held that the University

Grants Commission (Qualifications required of a person to be appointed

H

222 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A to the teaching staff of a University and institution affiliated to it) Regula­

tions,

1991, notified on 19th September, 1991, by the

University Grants

Commission (the second respondent in this appeal) were valid and man­

datory and the Delhi University (the appellant) was obliged under law to

comply therewith. The Delhi University was directed to select lecturers for

B

appointment in itself and in its affiliated colleges strictly in accordance with

the said Regulations. This appeal

by .special leave is filed by the Delhi University.

The writ petition was filed because Raj Singh had applied for the

post of lecturer in Commerce in three colleges affiliated to the Delhi

C

University but had not been called for an interview. He averred that the

advertisement for applications in this behalf did not lay down that can­

didates should have passed the test prescribed by the said Regulations and

that candidates

who had not passed that test would not be called for

interview. The writ petition

was contested by the Delhi

University. It was

D the case of the Delhi University that the said Regulations were beyond the

competence of the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) and that, in

any event, they were directory and not mandatory. The Delhi University, it

was submitted, was an autonomous body and no condition of eligibility

could

be imposed upon it. The case of the Delhi

University was not

accepted by the High Court.

E

F

G

The Delhi

University was established under the Delhi University Act,

1922, Section 2(g) thereof defines 'teacher.s to include "Professors,

Readers, focturers and other persons imparting instructions in this Univer­

sity or in any college or Hall", Section 2(h) defines 'teachers of the

University' to mean "persons appointed or recognised by the University for

the purpose of imparting instruction in the university or in any college".

"College"

is defined in clause (a) thus :

"College", means an institution maintained or admitted to its

provileges

by the

University, and includes an Affiliated College

and a Constituent College.

By reason of Section

20 the Court is "the supreme authority of the Univer­

sity". Section 21 states that the Executive Council would be the executed

body of the University. Section 23 states that the Academic Council would .

be the academic body of the University and would; subject to the provisions

H of the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, "have the control and general

·-

UNNERSITYOFDELIIl v. RATSINGH(BHARUCHA,J.] 223

regulation, and be responsible for the maintenance of standards of instruc- A

tion, education and examination within the University, and shall exercise

such other powers and perform such other Duties

as may be conferred or

imposed upon it

by the Statutes. It shall have the right to advise the

Executive Council on

all academic matters ........... ".

Section 29 deals with

the statutes of the University. No statute dealing with, inter alia, "the B

conditions on the fulfilment of whi~h the teachers of colleges and institu­

tions

may be

recognise4 as teachers of the University" may be made,

amended or repealed

by the Executive Council except with the prior

concurrence of the Academic

Coilncil.

Statute 6, so far as is relevant, reads thus :

(1) The Executive Council shall, subject to the control of the Court,

have the management and administration of the revenue and

property of the University and the conduct of all administrative

affairs of the university not otherwise provided

for.

(2) Subject to the provisions of the

Act, the Statutes and the

Ordinances, the Executive Council shall in addition to all other

powers vested in it, have the follmying powers namely :

c

D

(i) to appoint, from time to time, the Registrar, Librarian, Prin­

cipals of Colleges and Institutions established by the University E

and such professors, Readers, Lecturers and other members of the

teaching staff

as may be necessary on the recommendations of

Selection Committees constituted for the purpose."

Ordinance XXIV sets out the qualifications requisite for

· the post of F

Lecturer in the Delhi University thus :

(a) A Doctorate's degree or research work of an equally high

standard; and

(b) Good academic record with at least second class (C in the G

seven point scale) Master's degree in a relevant subject from an

Indian

University or an equivalent degree from a foreign Univer-

sity.

Having regard to the need for developing interdisciplinary

Programmes, the degree in (a) and (b) above may b.e in relevant H

224

A

B

c

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

subjects.

Provided that if the Selection Committee is of the view th.at the

research work of a candidate as evident either from his thesis or

from his published work is of very high standard, it may relax the

requirement of "at least second class in Master's degree

examination' in terms of level achieved at the said examination as

prescribed

in (b) above.

Provided further that if a candidate possessing a Doctor's degree

or equivalent research work is not available or is not considered

suitable, a

person possessing a good academic record, (weightage

being given

to M.

Phil. or equivalent degree or research work of

quality) may be appointed on the conditions that he will have to

obtain Doctor's/M. Phil. degree or give evidence of research of

high standard within ten years of his appointment, failing whic)l he

will not be able to earn future increments until he fulfils these

D requirements.

E

F

G

Explanation :

1. For determining 'good academic record' the following criteria

shall

be adopted :

(i) A candidate holding a

Ph. D./M.Phil, degree should possess at

least a second class Master's degree; or.

(ii) A candidate without a Ph. D./M. Phil degree should possess

a high second class master's degree

and second class in the

Bachelor's degree; or

(iii) A candidate not possessing

Ph.D./M. Phil degree but possess­

ing second class Master's degree should have obtained first class

in the bachelor's degree.

(2) persons having securing at least

55% or more marks shall be

deemed to have passed the examination in the high second class."

The Delhi University Act is

"existing law" for the purpose of the

Constitution of India, having been enacted before. the Constitution came

H into force. Entry 63 of List I of the Seventh Scheduled to the Constitution

....

-

UNIVERSITYOFDEUII v. RATSINGH(BHARUCHA,J.) 225

reads: A

"The Institutions known at the commencement of this Constitution

as the Banaras Hindu University, the Aligarh Muslim University

and the Delhi University; the University established in pursuance

of Article 371-E; any other institution declared by Parliament by

law to

be an institution of national importance." B

Therefore, it is Parliament which is invested with the power to legislate

concerning the Delhi University.

The University Grants Commission Act,

1956, (the

U.G.C. Act) is C

enacted under the provisions of entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule

to the Constitution.

It entitles Parliament to legislate in respect of "co-or­

dination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education

or research and scientific and technical institutions".

The short title of the

U.G.C. Act repeats the words of Entry 66, thus: D

"An Act to make provisions for the co-ordination and determina­

tion of standards in Universities for that purpose, to establish a

University Grants Commission."

E

Section 2 of the U.G.C. Act is the definition section and clause (t) thereof

defines a University to mean "a University established or incorporated by

or under a central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any

such institution as

may, in consultation with the University concerned, be

recognised by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in

this behalf under this Act".

Section 12 sets out the functions of the U.G.C. F

It says, so far as is relevant for our purposes.

"It shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in consult­

ation with the Universities

or other bodies concerned, all such

steps as it may

think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of

University education and

f~r the determination and maintenance G

of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities,

and for the purpose of performing its functions under this Act, the

Commission may -

:xxxxx :xxxxx :xxxxx xxxxx H

226

A

B

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

( d) recommend to any University the measures necessary for the

improvement of University education and advise the University

upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such

recommendation ;

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx

G) perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may

be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause

of higher education in India or as may

be incidental or conducive

to the discharge of the above functions.

C Section 12A enables the

U.G.C. to regulate fees and it prohibits donations'

in certain cases. Sub-section (1) of Section 12A sets our certain definitions

expressly for the purpose of Section 12A. Clause ( d) thereof defines

qualification to mean "a degree or any other qualification awarded by a

university''. Section

14 reads thus :

D

E

F

G

H

"If any

University grants affiliation in respect of any course. of study

to any college referred to

in the sub-section (5) of section 12A in

contravention of the provisions of that sub-section or fails within

a reasonable time to comply with any recommendation made

by

the Commission under section 12 or section 13, or contravenes the

provisions of any rule made under clause

(t) or clause (g) of

sub-section (2) of section 25, or of any regulation made under

clause ( e) or clause

(t) or clause (g) of section 26, the Commission,

after taking into consideration the cause,

if any, shown by the

University for such failure or contravention, may withhold from

the University the grants proposed to be made out of the Fund of

the Commission."

Section 20 reads thus :

"(1) In the discharge of its functions under this Act, the Commis­

sion shall.

be

guided by such directions on questions of policy

relating to national purposes as may

be given it to by the Central

Government.

(2)

If any dispute arises between the Central Government and the

commission as to whether a question is

or is not a question of

policy relating to national purposes, the decisions of the Central

UNIVERSITY OF DEUII v. RAJ SINGH [BHARUCHA, J.] 227

Government shall

be final."

Section

25 empowers the Central Government to make rules for the

carrying out of the purposes of the

U.G.C. Act. Section 26 entitles the

U.G.C., by notification in the Official Gazette, to make regulations consis­

tent with the Act and the rules made thereunder for :

"(e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily

be required

of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the university,

having regard to the

br~ch. of education in which he is expected

to give instruction.

A

B

c

(g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the co-ordination

of work or facilities in

Universities.

The said Regulation, that is to say, the University Grants Commission

(Qualifications required

of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff

of a

University and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, .1991, were D

made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 26(1)(e) reading with

Section 14

of the

U.G.C. Act and were notified on 19th September, 1991,

in the Gazette of India. They apply, by reason of clause 1 (ii) thereof, "to

every University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act.

Provincial

Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or E

an affiliated college recognised by the Commission in consultation with the University concerned under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants

Commission Act, 1956

and every institution deemed to be a

University

under Section 3 of the said Act". aause 2 prescribes the qualific~tions and

clause 3 the consequences of the failure of Universities to abide therewith.

They need to

be reproduced in extenso : F

"2. Qualifications -No person shall be appointed to a teaching post

in the

University or in any of institutions including constituent or

affiliated colleges recognised under clause (f) of Section 2 of the

University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or in an institution G

deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act in a

subject

if he does not fulfil the requirements as to the qualifications

for the appropriate subject as provided

in the Schedule 1. Provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualification can

only

be made by a

University in regard to the posts under it or H

228

A

B

c

D

E

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

any

of the institutions including constituent

or· affiliate~ c6lleges

recognised under clause

(t) of Section 2 of the aforesaid Act or

by any institution deemed to be a

University under Section 3 of

the said Act with the prior approval of the University Grants

Commission.

Provided further that these regulations shall not be applicable to

such cases where selections through duly constituted selection

committees for making appointments to the teaching posts have

been made prior to the enforcement

of these regulations.

3. Consequences of failure of

Universities to comply with recom­

mendations of the Commission, as per pro~ions of Section 14 or

the University Grants Commission Act, 1956:

If any University grants affiliation in respect of any course of study

to any college referred to in sub-section (5) of Section 12A in

contravention of the provisions of that sub-section or fails within

a reasonable time to comply with any recommendation made by

the Commission under Section

12 or

Section 13, or contravenes

the provision(s)

of any rule made under clause (t) or clause (g) or

sub-section (2) of

Section 25 of any regulation made under clause

(e) or clause

(t) or clause (g) of

Section 26, the Commission; after

taking into the consideration the cause,

if any, shown by the University for such failure of contravention, may without from the

University the grants proposed to be made out of the Fund of the

Commission."

F The genesis of the said Regulations is to be found in recommenda-

tions made by expert bodies of educationists from time to time.

In the

Report

of the National Commission on Teachers-II dated 23rd March,

1985, it was noted under the sub-title "Evaluating

aca9emic achievements"

that categorical statements had been made by various earlier committees

and commissions that examination results were neither reliable nor valid

G and comparable. It was recognised that the standards of performance

varied from

University to University, and that Universities which were a

little more exacting were less generous with their scores. A

way had to be

found to ensure not only that justice was done but also that it appeared

to

be done. Thereafter, in considering an All India Merit Test, the Report

H said that it had to be ensured that every citizen aspiring to be a teacher at

UNNERSI1YOFDELHI v.RAJSINGH[BHARUCHA,J.] 229

the tertiary level, that is, a lecturer, qualified in terms of a national A

yardstick. Since the first appointment presupposed doctoral work and since

the UGC as well as the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

(C.S.I.R.) held an All-India test for fellowships at this stage, the grade

secured by a candidate in this test could be utilised for drawing

up a list

of candidates eligible for lecturerships in colleges and Universities

of the B

country. If this proposal were to be implemented in such a manner that

test became reliable, valid and comparable from the academic and the

technical points of

view, the problem of regulating the induction of persons

with high calibre into the Universities and college of the country would

be

largely taken care of and the dream of having a national cadre of academics

with high inter-regional mobility would have been realised. The Report,

C

therefore, recommended "that the

U.G.C. should incorporate the passing

of one of the national tests at least in grade B

+ on a seven-point scale in

its Regulations laying down the minimum qualification of teachers and that

this should come into force within two years".

Under the sub-title "Profes­

sional excellence", The Report reiterated that it was extremely important D

to make a rigorous merit-based selection for the entry level into the

teaching profession, and

this view corresponded with that of the vast

majority of teachers.

In

1986 the

U.G.C. appointed a committee of eminent men in the

field of under the chairmanship of Prof. R.C. Mehrotra to examine the E

structure of emoluments and conditions of service of University and college

teachers and to make recommendations in this behalf "having regard to the

necessity of attracting and retraining talented persons in the teaching ·

profession and providing advancement opportunities to teachers of Univer­

sities and colleges". The Mehrotra Committee noted what the Sen Com- F

mittee and the Review Committee of the U.G.C. 1977, had said in regard

to the need for improved qualifications

of teachers and observed that

whereas high Standards of

M.Phil and Ph.D. continued to be maintained

in a number of Universities, the standards appeared to have been diluted

at several places because of unplanned growth, inadequate faculty and lack

of infrastructural facilities.

It was underlined that one very serious conse- G

quence of dilution of minimum standards for initial recruitment had been

that already existing disparities in the standards of teaching between rural

colleges, urban colleges, State Universities and Central Universities had

tended to get further aggravated. The Mehrotra Committee recommended

that the minimum qualification for eligibility to a lecturer's position should

H

230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A be a good M.A., M.Sc .. M.Com., or equivalent degree. While making this

recommendation the committee expressed its full consciousness of the

importance of research experience and capability

as an essential input for

efficiency and quality of teaching in most disciplines at the tertiary

(lecturer's)

level. It therefore, strongly recommended the creation of much

B

better research facilities for universities and colleges, particularly those

dealing with post-graduate education to start with. This would enable

brilliant lecturers recruited without an

M.Phil or Ph.D. degree to pursue

course and research work in their own institutions which could

be followed

for the completion of their dissertation by more specialised research for a

limited period in a more advanced centre of learning or research.

In order

C to ensure the quality of new entrants to the teaching profession, the

Mehrotra Committee recommended that

all aspirants for the post of

lecturer in a University or college should have passed a national qualifying

examination. This recommendation,it said,

was in line with the recommen­

dation of the National Commission on Teachers II.

Such a test would have

D the merit of removing disparities in standards of examination at the

Master's level between different Universities. The Mehrotra Committee

hoped that

by this step local Influence would be minimised and the

eligibility zone for recruitment would be come wider. The proposed

ex­

amination was to be a qualifying one in the sense that it determined only

eligibility and not selection. The Mehrotra Committee recommended the

E following minimum qualification for the post of lecturer :

F

G

H

"(i) Qualifying at the National Test conducted for the purpose by

the

UGC or any other agency approved by the UGC.

(ii) Master's degree with at least fifty five per cent marks or its

equivalent grade and good academic record.

The minimum qualifications mentioned above should not be

relaxed even for candidates possessing

M.

Phil, Ph.D., qualification

at the time of recruitment."

A-Conference of

Vice Chancellors was held under the auspices of

the U.G.C. in

1989. Among the major recommendations made by the

conference

was one that related to the "implementation of qualifying test

for recruitment of lectures". The recommendation read

thus:

"The National level test to determine the eligibility for lecturers be

UNNERSI1YOFDELHI v.RATSINGH[BHARUCHA,J.] 231

conducted. When the State Government conducts such tests, while A

accreditating them caution be exercised. It was also suggested that

the test in regional languages be also conducted."

Following up on the Mehrotra Committee report the Department of

Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of

India wrote to the U.G.C. on 17th June, 1987 on the subject of revision of B

pay-scales in Universities and colleges and other measures for the main­

tenance ·of standards in higher education. The letter stated that the

Government of India had, after taking into consideration the recommen­

dations of the U.G.C. (based upon the Mehrotra Committee report)

decided to revise the pay-scales of teachers in

the Central Universities. To C

enable the same to be done in the

State, separate letter had been ad­

dressed. A scheme for the revision of pay-scales was appended to the

letter, which would be applicable to teachers in

all the Central

Univer­

sities, the colleges in Delhi and the institutions deemed to be University

whose maintenance expenditure

was met by

the U.G.C. The implementa-

tion of the scheme would

be subject to acceptance of all the conditions D

attached to the scheme. The letter stated that the Universities should be

advised to amend their Statutes and Ordinances before the revised

Scales

became operational. For our purposes, the relevant portion of the scheme

reads

thus:

"Only those candidates who, besides fulfilling the mmunum

academic qualifications described for the post of lecturer, have

qualified in the comprehensive test, to

be specially conducted for

the purpose,

will be eligible for appointment as lecturers. The

detailed schemes for conducting the test including its design,

content and administration

will be worked out and communicated

by the

UGC."

Before we proceed to consider the submissions of learned counsel,

reference

may be made with advantage to two decisions of this Court which

consider entry

66 of List I of the

Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.

In The Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Krishna Ranganath Mud­

hokar and Others, [1963] Supp. 1 SCR lll, the central question was

whether the Gujarat University could impose Gujarati or Hindi as the

exclusive media of instruction and examination and whether State legisla-

E

F

G

tion authorising the Gujarat University to impose such media was constitu- H

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A tionally valid in view of entry 66. As it then read, entry 11 of List II

empowered the States to legislate in respect of education, including univer­

sities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I and 25

of List ill. Entry 63 of List I, as it then read, invested Parliament with the

power to enact legislation. with respect to the institutions known at the

commencement of the Constitution

as the Banaras Hindu

University, the

B Aligarh Muslim University and the Delhi University and other institutions

declared by Parliament by law to be institutions of national importance. By

reason of entry 66. Parliament was invested with the power to legislate on

"coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher

education or reach and scientific and technical institutions." Item

25 of List

C

ill conferred power upon Parliament and the State legislatures to enact

legislation with respect to "vocational and technical training

on labour". A

six-Judge bench of

this Court observed that the validity of

State legislation

on the subjects of University education and education in technical and

scientific institutions falling outside entry

64 of List I as it then read (that

is to say, institutions for scientific or technical education other than those

D financed by the Government of India wholly or in part and declared by Parliament by law to be institutions of national importance) had to be

judged having regard to whether it impinged on the field reserved for the

Union under entry 66. In other words, the validity of the State legislation

depended upon whether it prejudicially affected the coordination and

E determination of standards. It did not depend upon the actual existence of

union legislation in respect of coordination and determination of standards

which had, in any event, paramount importance by virtue of the first part

of Article

254(1). Even if power under entry 66 was not exercised by

Parliament, the relevant legislative entries being in the exclusive Union

List, a State law entren~hing upon the Union field would be invalid.

F Counsel for the Gujarat University submitted that the power conferred by

entry

66 was merely a power to coordinate and to determine standard; that

is, it was a power merely to evaluate and

fix the standards of education,

because the expression "coordination" meant evaluation and "determina­

tion" meant fixation.

Parliament had, therefore, power to legislate only for

G the ·purpose of evaluation and fixation of standards in the institutions

referred to in entry

66. In the course of the arguments, however, it was

admitted that steps to remove disparities which had actually resulted from

adoption of regional media and the falling of standards might

be under­

taken and legislation for equalising standards in higher education might be

enacted by

Parliament. The Court was unable to agree with the argument.

H It held that entry 66 was a legislative head and in interpreting it, unless it

..

UNIVERSITYOFDELHI v. RATSINGH[BHARUCHA,J.] 233

was expressly or necessity found conditioned by words used therein, a· A

narrow or restricted interpretation could not be put upon the generality of

its words. Power to legislate on a subject was normally to be held to extend

to all ancillary or subsidiary matters which could fairly and reasonably

be

said to be comprehended in that subject. Again, there was nothing either

in entry

66 or elsewhere in the Constitution which supported the submis-

sion that the expression "coordination" meant, in the context in which it

B

was used, merely evaluation. Coordination in its normal connotation meant

harmonising or bringing into proper relation.

In which all the things

coordinated participated in a common pattern of action. The power to

coordinate, therefore,

was not merely a power to evaluate. It was a power

to harmonise or secure relationship for concerted action. There

was noth-C

ing in entry 66 which indicated that the power to legislate on coordination

of standards in institutions of higher education did not include the power

to legislate for preventing the occurrence of or for removal of disparities

in standards.

By express pronouncement of the Constitution-makers it was

a power to coordinate and, of necessity, implied therein was the power to

prevent what would make coordination impossible or difficult. The power

D

was absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any controlling

reasons it had to

be given full effect according to its plain and expressed

intention.

In

Osmania University Teachers Association v. State of Andhra E

Pradesh and Anr., [1987] 3 SCR 949, the validity of the Andhra Pradesh

Commission crate of Higher Education Act, 1986, was in question. It was

enacted to provide for the constitution of a Commissionerate to advise the

State Government in matters relating to higher ed~cation and to oversee

its development and perform all functions necessary for the furtherance

and maintenance of excellence in the Standards of higher education. The

legislation

was upheld by the High Court. This court on appeal held to the

contrary.

It observed that entry 66 of List I gave power to the

Union to see

F

that the required standard of higher education in the country was main­

tained.

It was the exclusive responsibility of the Central Government to

coordinate and determine the standards of higher education. That power

G

included that power to evaluate, harmonise and secure proper relationship

to any project of national importance.

Such coordinate action in higher

education with proper standards

was of paramount importance to national

progress.

Parliament had exclusive power to legislate with regard to the

matters included in List-I and the State had no power at all in regard to H

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A such matters. If the State legislated on a subject falling within List-I, the

State legislation

was void. The Court went on to say, "The Constitution of

India vests parliament with exclusive authority in regard to co-ordination

and determination of standards

in institutions for higher edueation. The

Parliament has enacted the UGC Act for that purpose. The University

B Grants Commission has, therefore, a greater role to play in shaping the

academic life of the country.

It shall not falter of fail in its duty to maintain

a high standard in the Universities. Democracy depends for

it~ very life on

high standards of general, vocational and professional education, Dissemi­

nation of learning with search for new knowledge with discipline all round

C must be maintained at all costs. It is hoped that University Grants Com­

mission will duly discharge its responsibility to the national and play in

increasing role to bring about the needed transformation in the academic

life of the Universities."

Mr.

P.P. Rao, learned counsel for the Delhi University, submitted

D that the said Regulations were recommendatory or advisory in nature and

not mandatory. They could not override the provisions" of the Delhi Univer­

sity Act and its Statutes and Ordinances. If the said Regulations were

regarded as binding on all Universities, they would be

ultra vires the

U.G.C.

Act itself because Section 12( d) thereof only provided for recommendation

E and advice. The term "qualifications" in Section 26(1)(e) of the U.G.C. Act

meant educational qualifications obtained from recognised Universities.

The test prescribed by the said Regulations did not fall within the term

"qualifications" used in Section 26(1)(e). The definition of 'qualification'

given in Section 12A(l)(d) applied to Section 26(1)(e)

as well because

F Sections 12, 12A and 26 were inter-connected. Section 12 outlined the

powers and functions of the

U.G.C. It was incorporated by reference in

Section 12A(2). The said Regulations were made under section 26(1)(e)

giving effect to Section 12(d). The word "defining" used in Section 26(1)(e)

meant describing the nature of or stating precisely or specifying. The power

to define qualifications did not include the power to create a new qualifica-

G tion, which was what the said Regulations purported to do. In defining, the

U.G.C. could only specify some from among existing recognised qualifica­

tions awarded by Universities. The test prescribed by the said Regulations

was in the nature of a test for screening candidates possessing educational

qualifications obtained from different Universities by way of preliminary

H selection or a first step in the process of selection. Such a screening test

UNIVERSITYOFDELl:ll v. RAJSINGH(BHARUCHA,J.] 235

formed part of the process of selection. The U.G.C. Act did not confer A ·

upon the U.G.C. the power of selection of teachers or the power to

conduct a test for such selection. The power to appoint included the power

to select and the power to select included the power to choose the method

and manner of selection. The power to appoint teachers

was with the

universities. Only the universities could select teachers and for that purpose

B

only they could conduct a written test. The U.G.C. had not such power.

The power of coordination and determination of standards had nothing to

do with. the selection of teachers. It

was for each university to decide

whether it would select teachers

by a written test and interview or only by

interview. The said Regulations had been made in consultation with the

Department of Education, Ministry of Humans Resources Development,

C

Government of India. This was in contravention of the provisions of Section

12 read with Section 26(1)(e) and eroded the autonomy of every University.

The power to relax qualifications was an inherent power of the appointing

authority and

was necessarily implied in the power to make appointments.

While recognising the power of a University to relax qualifications, Clause

D

(2) of the said Regulations shifted the power from the Universities to the

U.G.C. through the requirement of its prior approval. This was assumption

of a part of the power of appointment and

was in contravention of the

U.G.C. Act. The clause in the said Regulations which required

Universities

to seek prior approval of the U.G.C. for the relaxation of qualifications was E

ultra vires Section 14 of the U.G.C. Act inasmuch as. While the action

contemplated

by Section 14 was post facto, that is, subsequent to the

appointment of a teacher in relaxation of the qualifications, the clause

altered the course of action and prohibited the relaxation of qualifications

without prior approval.

It was not open to the

U.G.C. to prescribe conse­

quences different from those mentioned in Section 14 for breach of regula- F

tions made under section 26 or change the sequence of steps to be taken

for securing enforcement thereof. Regulations made under Section

26(1)(e) did not override the Delhi University Act and its Statutes and

Ordinances relating to qualifications for the appointment of teachers. Only

regulations made under Sections 12A of the U.G.C. Act were given over-

G

riding effect by reason of sub-section (7) thereof. The word "ordinarily"

used in Section 26(1)(e) meant "not invariably". Therefore, the qualifica­

tions that were required to be defined

by Section 26(1)(e) of the U.G.C.

Act were in the nature only of recommendations. A written test

was

inappropriate and irrational in the case of

appoin~ments of person belong- H

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A ing to a mature age group like lecturers in a University. On a reasonable

interpretation of the said Regulations the test prescribed thereby operated

only qua candidates possessing the minimum qualification prescribed

by

the

U.G.C. and not qua candidates who possessed higher qualifications like

M.Phil and Ph.D. It operated also qua fresh entrants to the post of lecturer

B and not qua those who were already lecturers in other Universities or

colleges. Any other interpretation of the said Regulation would be tan­

tamount to treating unequals

as equals and, therefore; violative of Articles

14 and 16(1). The test prescribed by the said Regulations could not be a

substitute higher qualifications, much less a preferential qualification.

Entries

63 and 66 of List-I had to be construed harmoniously. Entry 66

C operated vis-a-vis institutions of higher education other than those men­

tioned in entry

63. Section 2(t) of the

U.G.C. Act to be construed accord­

ingly. So read, only some of the provisions of the U.G.C. Act, like Section

13, relating to the funding of Universities would apply to Central Univer­

sities and institutions mentioned in entry 63. The other provisions of the

D U.G.C. Act dealing with coordination and determination of Standards

would not apply to Central Universities and other institutions mentioned

in entry

63. These provisions applied only to Universities and institutions

other than those mentioned in entry

63. The definition of 'University' given

in Section 2(t) had to be understood in the context of each provision in the

E

U.G.C. Act and could not be read mechanically into each and every

provision thereof.

By reason of entry 63, the

Ordinances of the Delhi

University which prescribed qualifications had to be treated

as laid down

by

Parliament itself. The process of coordination by the U.G.C. could,.

therefore,

only mean that the standards of other Universities had to be

raised to the level of the standards of the Central Universities.

F

In support of his submission that only the University could select

candidates and for that purpose conduct a written examination, Mr. Rao

relied upon this Court's judgment in

A.P. Public Service Commission,

Hyderabad &Anr.

v. B.

Sarat Chandra & Ors., [1990) 2 S.C.R. 463. This was

G a case where the concerned rule provided that no person would be eligible

for appointment to the post in question

by direct recruitment unless he had

completed the age of

21 years and not completed the age of 26 years on

the first day of July of the year in which the selection

was made. The State

Administrative Tribunal took the

view that the selection could be said to

have been made only when the list had been prepared and the eligibility

H of the candidate as to age to be determined at this stage. This Court

UNNERSl1YOFDEUII v.RATSINGH[BHARUCHA,J.) 237

observed that

if the word 'selection' was understood as meaning only the A

final act of selecting candidates and preparation of the list for appoiri.tment

then the conclusion

of the Tribunal was not unjustified. Before accepting

that meaning, its consequences, anomalies

and uncertainties had to be

seen. Having regard thereto, the court came to the conclusion that the date

to attain the minimum

or maximum age had to be specific and determinate

for candidates to apply

and for the recruiting agency to scrutinise applica- B

tions. It was, therefore, unreasonable to construe the word "selection" to

mean only the factum

of preparation of the select list for that date could

vary.

It is difficult to see how this authority can support the proposition for

which it was intended. In support

of his submission that it was for each

University to decide whether it would select through a written test

and C

interview, or only an interview, Mr. Rao cited this Court's judgment in

State

of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Lavu Narendranath & Ors. etc., [1971) 3 SCR

699. This was a case on altogether different issues. This Court held that

the Government which

ran the colleges in question had the right to select

out

of the large number of applicants for seats and for this purpose it could

prescribe a test of its own. Merely because the Government tried to

D

supplement the eligibility rule by a written test in subjects with which the

candidates were already familiar, its action could not

be impeached. That

the University

had made regulations regarding the admission of students

to its degree courses did not mean that anyone who

had passed the

qualifying examination, such as the

P.U.C. or H.S.C., was ipso facto E

entitled to admission to such courses. Mr. Rao sought to rely upon the

judgment

of this Court in Lila Dhar v.

State of Rajasthan & Ors., [1982) 1

S.C.R. 320, to support the argument that written test was unfair and

irrational in the case of appointments of candidates belonging to a major

' age group.

We shall assume that this

decision so holds, but it is, in the facts

and circumstances of the present case, of title assistance. It is very evident F

that large numbers of educationists themselves have over the years strongly

recommended the imposition

of a written test for candidates holding

degrees from Universities all over the country because

of the lack of an

uniform standard and it is not for this Court to to say that they were wrong.

Again, the judgments in

Sanatha Gauda v. Berhampur University and ors., G

(1990) 2 S.C.R. ,273. and Dr. Amhesh Kumar etc. etc. v. Principa~ LLRM

Medical College Meemt and ors. etc. etc., (1987) 1 S.C.R. 661, were cited by

Mr.

Rao in support of the proposition that the test prescribed by the said

Regulations treated unequals as equals, the unequals being those who

possessed higher qualifications like M.

Phil. & Ph.D. and those who were

already lecturers in other Universities

and colleges. As we see it, all H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A applicants for the post of lecturer are equally placed and must be similarly

treated.

B

The learned Attorney General, appearing for the

UGC, referred us

to the various reports of committees and commissions of educationists

aforementioned. He drew our attention to the judgments in the cases of

the Gujarat University and the Osmania University, to which we were have

made reference.

He took us through the provisions of

U.G.C. Act and he

stressed the meaning of the word 'qualification'

as given in various dic­

tionaries and law lexicons. It

is enough to cite the Concise

Oxford Diction­

ary which defines 'qualification' to mean, inter alia, "the condition that must

C be fulfilled before right can be acquired or office held" and Black's Law

Dictionary which defines 'qualification' to mean "the possession by an

individual of the qualities, properties, or circumstances, natural or adven­

titious, which are inherently or legally necessary to render him eligible to

fill an office .....

". Upon this basis, the learned Attorney General submitted

D that qualification included eligibility. The written test prescribed. by the

said Regulations, he submitted,

was only a condition of eligibility and did

not. entrench upon the university's right to select, particularly since no

marks or ranks were awarded to successful

candidatf!s. The learned Attor­

ney General drew our attention to the provisions of Section 20 of the

U.G.C. Act {which we have extracted above) and to the letter dated 17th

E June, 1987, written by the Department of Education, Ministry of Human

Resources Development of the Government of India to the U.G.C. making

the implementation of the scheme annexed thereto a condition for the

revision of pay-scales as recommended by the Mehrotra Committee. He

pointed out that the scheme required that

only those candidates who,

F besides fulfilling the minimum academic qualifications prescribed for the

post of lecturer, has qualified in a comprehensive test to be specially

conducted for the purpose would

be eligible for appointment as lecturers.

The Attorney

General submitted that this letter was a directive by the

Central Government to the U:G.C. on a question of policy relating to

. national purposes and

was, therefore, in any event, binding upon the

G

U.G.C. and the said Regulations had been made consequential thereon.

Mr. Ganguli, learned counsel for Raj Singh {the first respo~dent and

original writ petitioner), adopted the argument of the learned Attorney

General.

He argued that there was no conflict between the areas of

H operation of entries 63 and 66 of List I and that the concept of the

..

--

UNNERSITYOFDEUII v. RAJSINGH[BHARUCHA,J.) 239

autonomy of an University could not be so construed as to make entry 66 A

otiose qua Universities that fell under entry 63. In regard to the meaning

of the word qualification Mr. Ganguli drew our attention to the judgment

of this Court in

The

State of Rajasthan and anothers v. Shri Fateh Chand

and

another,

[1970) 4 S.L.R. 55, where, the view that the word qualifications

meant only academic qualifications was disproved.

B

The Delhi University Act was on the Statute book when the U.G.C.

Act was enacted by Parliament under entry 66

of List I. It must be assumed

that Parliament

was aware of the provisions of the Delhi University Act

when it enacted the U.G.C. Act, particularly because the power to enact

legislations concerning the Delhi University lay with Parliament under

C

entry 63 of List I. The Delhi University and other

Universities covered by

entry 63 were consciously made subject to the regulation of the U.G.C in

so far as co-ordination and determination of standards were concerned.

This was made explicit by the definition

of

University in Section 2(f) of the

U.G.C. Act. To take any other view would be to make otiose, qua the

Universities covered by entry 63, not only the U.G.C. Act but entry 66 itself. D

The argument that Section 2(f) of the U.G.C. Acfdefining University had

to

be read not with reference to the

U.G.C. Act as a whole but only with

reference to such provisions of the U.G.C. Act as deal with funding must

be rejected.

If there were merit in the

argument that entry 66 operated only

vis-a-vis institutions other than those mentioned in entry

63,

the U.G.C. Act E

in its entirety would not apply to the Delhi University and the Delhi

University would, consequently, not be entitled to receive any grant there­

under. It

is for this reason to avail the grant but shed the obligation under

the

U.G.C. Act. That the argument has been so cautiously advanced.

The ambit of entry

66 has already been the subject of the decision F

of this Court in the cases of the Gujarat University and the

Osmania

University. The U.G.C. Act is enacted under the provisions of entry 66 to

carry out the objective thereof. Its short title, in fact, reproduces the words

of entry

66. The principal function of the U.G.C. is set out in the opening

words of section

12, thus "It shall be the general duty of the Commission G

to take ................. all such steps as it may think fit for the promotions and

co-ordination of University education and for the determination and main­

tenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in

Univer-

sities ........... " It is very important to note that a duty is cast upon the

Commission to take "all such steps as it may think fit ............... for the

determination and maintenance

of standards of teaching". These are very H

240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A wide ranging powers. Such powers, in our view, would compr(fhend the

power to require those who possess the education qualifications required

for holding the post of lecturer in Universities and colleges to appear for

a written test, the passing of which would.establish that they possess the

minim.al proficiency for holding such post. The need for such test is

B

demonstrated by the reports of the commissions and committees of

educationists referred to above which take note of

the· disparities in the

standards of education in the various Universities

in the country. It is

patent that the holder of a post-graduate degree from one University is not

necessarily

of the same standard as the holder of the same post-graduate

degree from another University. That is the rationale of the test prescribed

C by the said Regulations. It falls squarely within the scope of

entry 66 and

the U.G.C. Act inasmuch as it is intended to co-ordinate standards and the

U.G.C. Act is armed with the power to take all such steps as it may think

fit in this behalf .. For performing its general duty and its other functions

under the U.G.C. Act, the U.G.C. is invested with the powers specified in

the various clauses of Section

12. These include the power to recominend

D to a University the measures necessary for the improvement

of University

education and to advise in respect

of the action to be taken for the purpose

of implementing such recommendation (clause (d)). The

U.G.C. is also

invested with the power to perform such other functions

as may be

prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by it for advancing the cause

E of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conductive to the

.discharge of such functions (clause

G)). These two clauses are also wide

enough to empower the

U.G.C. to frame the said regulations. By reason

of Section 14, the U.G.C. is authorised to witQhold from a University its

grant

if the University fails within reasonable time to comply with its

F

recommendation, but it is required to do so only after taking into con­

sideration the cause,

if any, shown by the University for such

failure.·

Section 26 authorises the U.G.C. to make regulations consistent with the

U.G.C Act. and the rules made thereunder, inter alia, defining the

qualifications that should ordinarily

be required for any person to be

appointed to the teaching staff of a University, having regard to the branch

G of education in which he is expected to give instruction (clause ( e) of

sub-section (1)); and regulating the maintenance of standards and the

coordination

of work or facilities in Universities (clause (g)). We have no

doubt that the word 'defining' means setting out precisely or specifically.

The word 'qualifications', as used in clause ( e ), as of wide amplitude and

would include the requirement of passing a basic eligibility test prescribed

H by the

U.G.C. The word 'qualifications' in clause (e) is certainly wider than

,_

-·

UNIVERSITYOFDELHI v. RAJSINGH[BHARUCHA,J.] 241

the word 'qualification' defined in Section 12A{l) {d), which in expressly A

stated terms is a definition that applies only to the provisions of Section

12A. Were this definition of qualification, as meaning a degree or any other

qualification awarded by a University, to have been intended to apply

throughout the Act, it would have found place in the definitions section,

namely Section

2.

B

We now turn to analyse the said Regulations. They are made ap­

plicable to a

University established or incorporated by or under a Central

Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution, including a con­

stituent or an affiliated college recognised by the U.G.C. in consultation

with the University concerned, and every institution deemed to be a

University. The said Regulation are thus intended to have the widest C

possible application, as indeed they must have if they are to serve the

purpose intended, namely, to ensure that

all applicants for the post of

lecturer, from whichever

University they may have procured the minimum

qualificatory degree, must establish that they possess the proficiency re­

quired for lecturers in all Universities in the country. This is what clause 2 D

of the said Regulations mandates, thus :" No person shall be appointed to

a teaching post in university ............ in a subject

if he does not fulfil the

requirements

as to the qualifications for the appropriate subject as

provided in the Schedule

1". The first proviso to clause 2 permits relaxation

in the prescribed qualifications by a

University provided it is made with

the prior approval of the U.G.C. This is because the said Regulations, E

made under the provisions of Section 26 {l){e), define the qualifications

that are ordinarily and not invariably required of a lecturer. The second

proviso to clause 2 makes the application of the said Regulations prospec-·

tive. Clause 3 of the said Regulations provides for the consequence of the

failure of a University to comply with the recommendation made in clause

2

in the same terms as are set out in section 14 of the

U.G.C. Act. The

provisions of clause 2 of the said Regulations are, therefore, recommen­

datory in character.

It would be open to a

University to comply with the

provisions of clause 2 by employing as lecturers only such persons

as fullfil

the requirements as to qualifications for the appropriate subject provided

F

in the schedule to the said Regulations. It would also be open, in specific G

cases, for the

University to seek prior approval of the U.G.C. to relax these

requirements. Yet again, it would be open to the University not to comply

with the provisions of clause

2, in which case, in the event that it failed to

satisfy the

U.G.C. that it had done so for good cause, it would lose its grant

from the U.G.C. The said Regulations do not impinge upon the power of

H

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R..

A the University to select its teachers. The University may still select its

lecturers by written test and interview

or either. Successful candidates at tb.e basic eligibility test prescribed by the said Regulations are awarded no

marks or ranks and, therefore, all who have cleared it stand at the same

level There

is, therefore, no element of selection in the process. The

B

University's autonomy is not entrenched upon by the said Regulations.

Mr. Rao was at pains to tell us that there were men and women in

the field of education who possessed far higher qualifications than the

minimum prescribed for lecturers who were willing to join the Delhi

University as Lecturers but would be deterred from doing so by reason of

C the test prescribed by the said Regulations. We have not doubt that there

must

be highly

qualified men and women in the country who, to serve their

chosen field, would

be willing to become lecturers. We have no doubt that

they would appreciate the sound objective

of the said Regulations and

would, therefore, not consider it infra dig to appear at and clear the test

prescribed thereby. We have also no doubt that in the case of eminently

D qualified men and women, the

U.G.C. would not hesitate to grant prior

approval to the relaxation

of the requirement of clearing the test.

In the view that we take, it is, we think, not necessary to consider

whether or not the letter dated 17th June, 1987 addressed by the Depart­

ment

of Education. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govern-

E ment of India to the

U.G.C. can be said to be a directive under Section 20

of the U.G.C. Act concerning a question of policy relating to national

purposes.

It is enough to say that the facts do not bear out the submission

of Mr. Rao that the said Regulations were made at the behest of the

Government of India.

F It is now appropriate to clarify the direction that the Delhi High

Court issued in allowing the wiit petition.

It held that the notification dated

19th September,

1991, by which the said Regulations were published, was

valid and mandatory and the Delhi

University was obliged under law to

comply therewith. The Delhi University was directed to select lecturers for

G itself and its affiliated and subordinate colleges strictly in accordance with

the notification. Put shortly, the Delhi University is mandated to comply

with the said regulations. As analysed above, therefore, the Delhi Univer­

sity may appoint as a lecturer in itself and its affiliated colleges one who

has cleared the test prescribed by the said regulations:

or it may seek prior

approval for the relexation of this requirement in a specific case, or it may

H appoint as lecturer one who does not meet this requirement without having

r

UNNERSITYOFDEUil v. RATSINGH[BHARUCHA,J.) 243

first obtained the UGC's approval, in which event it would, if it failed to A

show cause for its failure to abide by the said Regulations to the satisfaction

of the U.G.C., forfeit its grant from the U.G.C. If, however, it did show

cause to the satisfaction of the U.G.C. it not only would not forfeit its

grant but the appointment made without obtaining the U.G.C.'s prior

approval would stand regularised.

The appeal is dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

U.R. Appeal dismissed.

B