# Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 698
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-18
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 580 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/geetanjali-tiwari-pandey-v-union-of-india-ors-51465
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Appointment to Assistant
Professor - UGC Regulations, 2018 - Shortlisting Criteria - Petitioners challenged noninclusion in the short-list for Assistant Professor
interviews, alleging improper denial of marks for
teaching/post-doctoral experience under Clause
7, Table 3A of UGC Regulations, 2018 -
Respondents
applied
Regulation
10(f)(iii),
requiring past teaching experience to have
emoluments not less than a regularly appointed
Assistant Professor - Held, Regulation 10
applies to counting past services for direct
recruitment
or
promotion
under
Career
Advancement Scheme (CAS) for Associate
Professor/Professor posts, not for short-listing
Assistant Professor candidates - Clause 7, Table
3A, does not mandate Regulation 10's salary
condition for awarding marks for teaching
experience
-
Respondents'
interpretation
erroneous, as teaching experience in recognized
institutions with requisite qualifications suffices
for 2 marks per year. (Paras 17, 23, 24, 30, 33,
36)

B. Service Law - Constitutional Validity -
Regulation 10(f)(iii) - Petitioners sought to
declare Regulation 10(f)(iii) ultra vires Article
14, claiming it arbitrarily excludes teaching
experience with lower emoluments - Held, since
Regulation 10 is inapplicable to short-listing for
Assistant Professor under Clause 7, Table 3A,
the challenge to its constitutional validity is
unnecessary
-
Teaching/post-doctoral
experience under Clause 7 should be given
ordinary meaning, covering full-time teaching in
recognized
institutions
without
salary
or
appointment nature restrictions - Respondents'
reliance on Regulation 10(f)(iii) misconceived,
as it distorts the purpose of short-listing
meritorious candidates. (Paras 11, 17, 33, 34,
36)

C. Service Law - Short-listing for Assistant
Professor
-
Interpretation
of
UGC
Regulations - Clause 7, Table 3A, awards 2
marks per year for teaching/post-doctoral
experience without defining the term - Held,
applying Regulation 10's restrictive conditions
(e.g., salary equivalence, exclusion of guest
lecturer roles) to Clause 7 is unwarranted, as it
creates anomalies, particularly for post-doctoral
experience - Teaching experience as a full-time
teacher in a recognized university/college with
requisite qualifications entitles candidates to
marks
under
Clause
7,
regardless
of
appointment type or salary - This interpretation
promotes the objective of selecting the best
candidates for interview - Existing selections
unaffected, but future short-listing to follow this
judgment. (Paras 31, 33, 35, 36, 37)

Writ Petition, Special Appeals, and Review
Application Disposed - Respondents Directed to
Short-list Candidates per Judgment.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Chancellor,
against
whom
certain
allegations have been made. Besides the
fact that no charges-sheet or inquiry was
conducted as has been envisaged under the
relevant rules of the University, the principle
of Natural Justice was also not followed by the
University while passing the termination
order. Since, this Court has upheld the findings
of the learned Single Judge and has found the
said to have been passed on sound legal
principles, this Court does not find any reasons
as to why the consequential relief, including
back wages should not be granted to private
respondent. The Apex Court in the case of
Pradeep vs Manganese Ore (India) Limited
and others; (2022) 3 SCC 683 has held at
paragraph 12 of the said judgment, which
reads as under:

"12. It is, undoubtedly, true when
the question arises as to whether the back
wages is to be given and as to what is to be the
extent of back wages, these are matters which
will depend on the facts of the case as noted
in Deepali Gundu Surwase [Deepali Gundu
Surwase
v.
Kranti
Junior
Adhyapak
Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 : (2014) 2
SCC (L&S) 184] . In a case where it is found
that the employee was not at all at fault and
yet, he was visited with illegal termination or
termination which is actually activised by
malice, it may be unfair to deny him the fruits
of the employment which he would have
enjoyed
but
for
the
illegal/malafide
termination. The effort of the Court must be to
then to restore the status quo in the manner
which is appropriate in the facts of each case.
The nature of the charges, the exact reason for
the termination as evaluated and, of course,
the question as to whether the employee was
gainfully employed would be matters which
will enter into the consideration by the Court."
(59) Thus, this Court is of the view
that once a selection is duly made, then in case
there is any shortcomings in the said selection
which is of such a nature that the same cannot
be condoned, action has to be taken
expeditiously. In the present case, there is no
allegation that the writ petitioner/private
respondent had misrepresented about their
educational qualifications or their experience
or where in any manner misconducted
themselves in obtaining selection in the
University. In absence of any fraud or
misrepresentation having been committed by
the writ petitioner/private respondent, the
selection cannot be cancelled after long period
of seven years.

E. CONCLUSION

(60) For all the aforesaid reasons, this
Court is not inclined to interfere in the findings
arrived by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned common judgment/order dated
08/05/2023 passed in Writ-A Nos. 4293, 4316,
4310, 4307, 4312 of 2022 and the impugned
judgement/order dated 24.05.2023 passed in
Writ-A No.7046 of 2022.

(61) As a sequel to above, all the abovecaptioned appeals are dismissed. However,
in the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
there shall be no orders as to cost.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 698
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ - A No. 580 of 2023
with
Special Appeal Defective No. 187 of 2022
With
Special Appeal Defective No. 257 of 2022
With
Civil Misc. Review Application No. 398 of 2023
2 All. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) Vs.Union of India & Ors.
699
Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, Sri Digvijay Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Ankur Agarwal, Sri Dhananjay
Awasthi, Sri Kshitij Shailendra, Sri Kunal
Ravi Singh, Sri Saumitra Singh, Sri Vinayak
Mithal

A. Service Law - Appointment to Assistant
Professor - UGC Regulations, 2018 - Shortlisting Criteria - Petitioners challenged noninclusion in the short-list for Assistant Professor
interviews, alleging improper denial of marks for
teaching/post-doctoral experience under Clause
7, Table 3A of UGC Regulations, 2018 -
Respondents
applied
Regulation
10(f)(iii),
requiring past teaching experience to have
emoluments not less than a regularly appointed
Assistant Professor - Held, Regulation 10
applies to counting past services for direct
recruitment
or
promotion
under
Career
Advancement Scheme (CAS) for Associate
Professor/Professor posts, not for short-listing
Assistant Professor candidates - Clause 7, Table
3A, does not mandate Regulation 10's salary
condition for awarding marks for teaching
experience
-
Respondents'
interpretation
erroneous, as teaching experience in recognized
institutions with requisite qualifications suffices
for 2 marks per year. (Paras 17, 23, 24, 30, 33,
36)

B. Service Law - Constitutional Validity -
Regulation 10(f)(iii) - Petitioners sought to
declare Regulation 10(f)(iii) ultra vires Article
14, claiming it arbitrarily excludes teaching
experience with lower emoluments - Held, since
Regulation 10 is inapplicable to short-listing for
Assistant Professor under Clause 7, Table 3A,
the challenge to its constitutional validity is
unnecessary
-
Teaching/post-doctoral
experience under Clause 7 should be given
ordinary meaning, covering full-time teaching in
recognized
institutions
without
salary
or
appointment nature restrictions - Respondents'
reliance on Regulation 10(f)(iii) misconceived,
as it distorts the purpose of short-listing
meritorious candidates. (Paras 11, 17, 33, 34,
36)

C. Service Law - Short-listing for Assistant
Professor
-
Interpretation
of
UGC
Regulations - Clause 7, Table 3A, awards 2
marks per year for teaching/post-doctoral
experience without defining the term - Held,
applying Regulation 10's restrictive conditions
(e.g., salary equivalence, exclusion of guest
lecturer roles) to Clause 7 is unwarranted, as it
creates anomalies, particularly for post-doctoral
experience - Teaching experience as a full-time
teacher in a recognized university/college with
requisite qualifications entitles candidates to
marks
under
Clause
7,
regardless
of
appointment type or salary - This interpretation
promotes the objective of selecting the best
candidates for interview - Existing selections
unaffected, but future short-listing to follow this
judgment. (Paras 31, 33, 35, 36, 37)

Writ Petition, Special Appeals, and Review
Application Disposed - Respondents Directed to
Short-list Candidates per Judgment.

List of Cases cited:

1. Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs St. of Guj., (2022)
5 SCC 179

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.)

1. These bunch of cases raise similar
questions of law and fact and have been
heard together. They are thus being
disposed of by this common judgment.
Writ Petition No.580 of 2023 filed by
Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) is taken as the
lead case.

2. All the petitioners/appellants in this
bunch undisputedly possess minimum
qualification prescribed for appointment to
the post of Assistant Professor in a
recognized
university
or
the
degree
colleges affiliated to it. The qualification
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for appointment to the post of Assistant
Professor is prescribed by the UGC
regulations notified on 18.7.2018, titled as
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 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Regulations'). The post
of Assistant Professor as per the regulations
is to be filled by way of direct recruitment.
Clause 4 of the regulations, in so far as it
deals with appointment on the post of
Assistant
Professor,
is
extracted
hereinafter:-

"4.0 Direct Recruitment

4.1 For the Disciplines of Arts,
Commerce,
Humanities,
Education,
Law,
Social
Science,
Sciences,
Languages, Library Science, Physical
Education, and Journalism & Mass
Communication.

I. Assistant Professor:

Eligibility (A or B):

A.

i) A Master's degree with 55%
marks (or an equivalent grade in a pointscale wherever the grading system is
followed) in a concerned/relevant/allied
subject from an Indian University, or an
equivalent degree from an accredited
foreign university.

ii) Besides fulfilling the above
qualifications, the candidate must have
cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET)
conducted by the UGC or the CSIR, or a
similar test accredited by the UGC, like
SLET/SET or who are or have been
awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with
the
University
Grants
Commission
(Minimum Standards and Procedure for
Award
of
M.Phil./Ph.D.
Degree)
Regulations, 2009 or 2016 and their
amendments from time to time as the case
may be exempted from NET/SLET/SET:

Provided,
the
candidates
registered for the Ph.D. programme prior to
July 11, 2009, shall be governed by the
provisions
of
the
then
existing
Ordinances/Bye-laws/Regulations of the
Institution awarding the degree and such
Ph.D. candidates shall be exempted from
the requirement of NET/SLET/SET for
recruitment and appointment of Assistant
Professor
or
equivalent
positions
in
Universities/Colleges/Institutions subject to
the fulfillment of the following conditions:-

a) The Ph.D. degree of the
candidate has been awarded in a regular
mode;

b) The Ph.D. thesis has been
evaluated
by
at
least
two
external
examiners;

c) An open Ph.D. viva voce of the
candidate has been conducted;

d) The candidate has published
two research papers from his/her Ph.D.
work, out of which at least one is in a
referred journal;

e) The candidate has presented at
least two papers based on his/her Ph.D.
work
in
conferences/seminars
sponsored/funded/supported
by
the
UGC/ICSSR/CSIR or any similar agency.

The fulfilment of these conditions
is to be certified by the Registrar or the
Dean (Academic Affairs) of the University
concerned.

Note: NET/SLET/SET shall also
not
be
required
for
such
Masters
Programmes in disciplines for which
NET/SLET/SET is not conducted by the
UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by
the UGC, like SLET/SET.
OR

B. The Ph.D. degree has been
obtained
from
a
foreign
university/institution with a ranking among
2 All. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) Vs.Union of India & Ors.
701
top 500 in the World University Ranking
(at any time) by any one of the following:
(I) Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) (ii) the
Times Higher Education (THE) or (iii) the
Academic Ranking of World Universities
(ARWU) of the Shanghai Jiao Tong
University (Shanghai).

Note: The Academic score as
specified in Appendix II (Table 3A) for
Universities, and Appendix II (Table 3B)
for Colleges, shall be considered for shortlisting of the candidates for interview only,
and the selections shall be based only on
the performance in the interview."

3. The regulations also provide for
selection committee for appointment to the
post of Assistant Professor. The procedure
for selection is also specified in the
regulations.
Assessment
criteria
for
determining merit as also its methodology
are specified in the regulations. Clause 10
of the regulations then provide for counting
of past service for direct recruitment and
promotion
under
career
advancement
scheme. This clause though does not appear
to have any relevance for appointment to
the post of Assistant Professor, by direct
recruitment, but since clause 10(f)(iii) is
applied for short-listing of candidates to be
called for interview and is also challenged
in some of the petitions, therefore, it has
become necessary to refer to it. Clause 10
of the regulations is extracted hereinafter:-

"10.0 Counting of Past Services
for Direct Recruitment and Promotion
under CAS

Previous regular service, whether
national or international, as Assistant
Professor, Associate Professor or Professor
or equivalent in a University, College,
National
Laboratories
or
other
scientific/professional organisations such as
the CSIR, ICAR. DRDO, UGC, ICSSR,
ICHR, ICMR and DBT, should count for
the direct recruitment and promotion under
the CAS of a teacher as Assistant
Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or
any other nomenclature, provided that:

(a) The essential qualifications of
the post held were not lower than the
qualifications prescribed by the UGC for
Assistant Professor, Associate Professor
and Professor, as the case may be.

(b) The post is/was in an
equivalent grade or of the pre-revised scale
of pay as the post of Assistant Professor
(Lecturer), Associate Professor (Reader)
and Professor.
 (c)
The
concerned
Assistant
Professor,
Associate
Professor
and
Professor
should
possess
the
same
minimum qualifications as prescribed by
the UGC for appointment to the post of
Assistant Professor, Associate Professor
and Professor, as the case may be.

(d) The post was filled in
accordance with the prescribed selection
procedure as laid down in the Regulations
of the University/State Government/Central
Government/Institutions
concerned,
for
such appointments.

(e) The previous appointment was
not as guest lecturer for any duration.

(f) the previous Ad-hoc or
Temporary or contractual service (by
whatever nomenclature it may be called)
shall be counted for direct recruitment and
for promotion, provided that:

(i) the essential qualifications of
the post held were not lower than the
qualifications prescribed by the UGC for
Assistant Professor, Associate Professor
and Professor, as the case may be.

(ii) the incumbent was appointed
on
the
recommendation
of
a
duly
constituted Selection Committee/Selection
Committee constituted as per rules of the
respective university;
702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iii) the incumbent was drawing
total gross emoluments not less than the
monthly gross salary of a regularly
appointed Assistant Professor, Associate
Professor and Professor, as the case may
be; and

(g) No distinctions shall be made
with reference to the nature of management
of the institution where previous service
was
rendered
(private/local
body/Government) while counting the past
service under this clause."

4. The regulations also specify the
criteria to be followed for applicants to be
shortlisted for interview for the post of
Assistant Professors. Table 3A of the
regulations, describing the criteria for
short-listing, is extracted hereinafter:-

Table: 3A

Criteria for Short-listing of Candidates
for Interview for the Post of Assistant
Professors in Universities

S.
N
.
Academic
Record
Score
1.

Graduation

80
%
&
Ab
ove
=
15
60
%
to
less
tha
n
80
%=
13
55
%
to
less
tha
n
60
%=
10
45
%
to
less
tha
n
55
%=
05
2.

PostGraduation

80
%
&
Ab
ove
=
25
60
%
to
less
tha
n
80
55%(50%
in case of
SC/ST/O
BC(noncreamy
layer)PW
D) to less

%=
13

than
60%=220
3.

M.Phil.

60
%
&
Ab
ove
=
07
55% to less than
60%=05

4.
Ph.D.
30
5.
NET
with
JRF
07

NET
05

SLET/SET
03
6.

Research
Publications
(2 marks for
each
research
publications
published in
PeerReviewed
for
UGClisted
journals)
10

7.

Teaching/Po
st
Doctoral
Experience
(2 marks for
oner
year
each)#
10

8.
Awards

International
/National
Level
(Awards
given
by
International
Organisation
s/Governme
nt
of
India/Gover
nment
of
03
2 All. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) Vs.Union of India & Ors.
703
India
recognized
National
Level
Bodies)

State-Level
(Awards
given
by
State
Government
)
02

#However,
if
the
period
of
teaching/Post-doctoral experience is less
than one year then the marks shall be
reduced proportionately.

Note:

(A)
(i)
M.Phil
+
Ph.D
Maximum- 30 marks

(ii)
JRF/NET/SET
Maximum- 07 marks

(iii)
In
awards
category
Maximum- 03 marks

(B) Number of candidates to be called
for interview shall be decided by the
concerned universities

(C) Academic Score -80

Research Publications -10

Teaching Experience -10

-------------------------------

Total -100

-------------------------------

(D)
Score
shall
be
valid
for
appointment in respective State SLET/SET
Universities/Colleges/Institutions only.

5. All the petitioners/appellants have
applied for appointment to the post of
Assistant
Professor
pursuant
to
the
advertisements issued by the University of
Allahabad or its constituent colleges. The
petitioners/appellants are aggrieved by noninclusion of their names in the short-listed
candidates to be called for interview. The
petitioners apparently have not been
awarded any marks on account of their
teaching/post doctoral experience in terms
of clause 7 of table 3A as their teaching
experience is not in consonance with
regulation
10(f)(iii).
Petitioners
consequently urge that regulation 10(f)(iii)
be not applied while computing marks
admissible against clause 7 of table 3A of
the regulations or else regulation 10(f)(iii)
be held ultra vires. It is also submitted that
in the event proper marks were accorded to
them for their teaching experience in terms
of clause 7 of table 3A then they would
qualify to be short-listed for interview.

6. The petitioners assert that though
they have requisite teaching experience yet
ten marks available to them, as per clause 7
of table 3A have been denied to them by
misreading and misapplying the provisions
of the UGC regulations, inasmuch as the
criteria specified for counting past services
for appointment or promotion under career
advancement scheme has no applicability
while calculating marks as per clause 7 of
table 3A. It is thus urged that clause 10
of the regulations apply in entirely
different
eventuality
and
has
erroneously been applied in the facts of
the present case.

7. In leading writ petition no.580 of
2023,
the
petitioner
has
sought
a
declaration that regulation 10(f)(iii) of
Regulations be declared ultra vires Article
14 of the Constitution of India. Clause
(B)(viii) of the General Instructions issued
by respondent no.4, in that regard, is also
assailed. Prayer is also made to command
the respondents to consider the candidature
of the petitioner on the post of Assistant
Professor
in
Sanskrit
pursuant
to
advertisement dated 28.11.2022.
704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. Special Appeal Defective No.187 of
2022 is also filed by the petitioner in the
leading case challenging a judgment of
learned Single Judge dated 20.5.2022
dismissing her writ petition no.7114 of
2022. Learned Single Judge had refused the
prayer made for award of marks for
teaching while short-listing the candidates
to be called for interview relying upon
regulation 10(e)&(f)(iii) of the regulations.
The petitioners working as guest faculty at
Allahabad University has been overlooked
in view of regulation 10(e) while her
working in PG College affiliated to Deen
Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University has
not
been
counted
towards
teaching
experience as her contractual appointment
did not allow her salary in terms of
regulation 10(f)(iii) of the regulations.
Learned Single Judge also observed that
the relevant regulations, in that regard,
were otherwise not challenged. It is
apparently to get over this observation that
the lead case has been filed challenging the
regulations.

9. Special Appeal Defective No.257 of
2022 has been filed by petitioner Brahma
Deo claiming marks on account of teaching
experience. Learned Single Judge vide his
order dated 20.5.2022 dismissed the writ
relying upon the judgment of the date
rendered in Writ-A No.7114 of 2022 filed
by the lead petitioner Geetanjali Pandey.
The judgment of learned Single Judge is
thus assailed in the special appeal.

10. Lead petitioner had earlier filed
Writ-A No.16585 of 2022 challenging
regulation
10(f)(iii)
as
also
the
consequential clauses (iv) and (v) of the
General Instructions contained in the
advertisement dated 10.9.2022. This writ
has been dismissed on the ground that the
judgment of learned Single Judge in WritA No.7114 of 2022 was already challenged
in special appeal defective no.187 of 2022
and leave was also sought, therein, to
challenge regulation 10(f)(iii). Writ Petition
No.16585 of 2022 accordingly was not
entertained. Liberty, however, was granted
to the petitioner to press her special appeal
or the application for grant of leave. A
review application no.398 of 2023 has been
filed to review the judgment and order
dated 2.8.2023 dismissing writ petition
no.16585 of 2022. This review is also
connected in this bunch of petitions.

11. Clause 10(f)(iii) provides that only
such services shall be counted where the
incumbent
was
drawing
total
gross
emoluments not less than the monthly gross
salary of a regularly appointed Assistant
Professor. The benefit of past services
would not be extended if the salary drawn
by the teacher/Assistant Professor is less
than the gross salary of a regularly
appointed Assistant Professor. It is for this
reason that petitioners/appellants have
challenged regulation 10(f)(iii) of the UGC
regulations, 2018 and a declaration has
been sought that it is ultra vires Article 14
to the Constitution of India. A prayer has
also been made to quash clause b(viii) of
the
General
Instructions
issued
by
respondent no.4 Ishwar Saran Degree
College. Clause b(viii) is reproduced
hereinafter:-

"(viii) Minimum Educational
Qualifications: (a) The applicant must
fulfil the essential requirements for desired
post (Assistant Professor and College
Librarian) and other conditions stipulated
in
the
UGC
REGULATIONS
ON
MINIMUM
QUALIFICATIONS
FOR
APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND
OTHER
ACADEMIC
STAFF
IN
UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND
2 All. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) Vs.Union of India & Ors.
705
MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE
OF
STANDARDS
IN
HIGHER
EDUCATION,
2018
with
subsequent
amendments made from time to time,
before the first date of publication of
Advertisement.

(b) Applicants are advised to
satisfy themselves before applying, that
they possess the essential qualifications laid
down for the posts, as on the last date of
submission of Online Application Form.
No enquiry asking for advice as to
eligibility will be entertained."

12. In the leading writ petition of
Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey), it is asserted
that petitioner has applied for appointment
to the post of Assistant Professor in
Sanskrit in Allahabad Degree College, a
constituent
college
of
University
of
Allahabad. The petitioner has graduated in
Sanskrit as one of the subjects in 1996 and
possesses
a
post-graduate
degree
in
Sanskrit(ved). She has also done her Phd in
the year 2003-2007 from Deen Dayal
Upadhayay University, Gorakhpur and has
also qualified NET in Sanskrit. The
petitioner asserts that she has teaching
experience of contractual post from Jawad
Ali Shah Imambara Girls P.G. College,
Gorakhpur where she was appointed on
15.10.2004 and she has served in the said
institution upto 21.7.2010. The petitioner
also
claims
that
she
has
teaching
experience as a guest faculty at the
University of Allahabad for the academic
year 2017-2018.

13. Respondent no.4 Ishwar Saran
Degree College issued an advertisement
No. ISDC/01/2022 dated 10.9.2022 inviting
applications for appointment to the post of
Assistant Professor in various subjects.
Petitioner's name has, however, not been
included in the list of eligible candidates to
be called for interview apparently on the
ground that she does not satisfy the
condition laid down in regulation 10(f)(iii)
of the 2018 regulations for her past
teaching experience to be counted in terms
of clause 7 of table 3A.

14. Writ petition No.71141 of 2022,
filed by the petitioner, challenging her noninclusion in the short-listed candidates to
be called for interview came to be
dismissed on 20.5.2022 on the ground that
regulation
10(f)(iii)
had
not
been
challenged.
Aggrieved
by
the
said
judgment the petitioner has preferred
Special Appeal Defective No.580 of 2023
by moving an application for grant of
leave. The petitioner has also challenged
the vires of regulation 10(f)(iii). A separate
petition has also been filed with the prayer
to declare 10(f)(iii) of regulations as ultra
vires.

15. Counter affidavits are filed by the
respondents
contending
that
UGC
regulations
are
binding
upon
the
institutions and the petitioner-appellants
were not entitled to award of marks for
their teaching experience since the salary
paid to them was below the salary
admissible for the post of Assistant
Professor by virtue of regulation 10(f)(iii).
Respondents
contend that the
salary
received by the petitioner as a guest
lecturer and as a teacher of the PG college
at Gorakhpur was much below the salary
admissible to a Assistant Professor.

16. We have heard Sri Alok Kumar
Yadav and Sri Alok Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner-appellants and Sri
Dhananjay Awasthi for the University
Grants Commission; Sri Kunal Ravi Singh
and Sri Ankur Agarwal have appeared for
the University of Allahabad and its
706 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
affiliated colleges and have perused the
materials on record.

17. The short question raised in this
bunch of petitions is as to whether
regulation 10(f)(iii) would be applicable
while
awarding
marks
for
the
teaching/post-doctoral experience, in terms
of clause 7 of table 3A for short-listing of
candidates, to be called for interview for
the post
of
Assistant
Professors
in
universities? As a sequel, it has to be seen
as to whether regulation 10(f)(iii) is ultra
vires Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.

18. It is undisputed between the parties
that qualification and criteria for direct
recruitment to a university, duly established
as per law, would be determined by the
UGC regulations. It is otherwise settled in
law that UGC regulations would prevail in
the matter of recruitment of teaching staff
in
a
recognized
university.
(see
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs. State of
Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179)

19.
Regulation
4
provides
the
qualification for appointment to the post of
Assistant Professor. Since the appointment
of Assistant Professor is an entry level
appointment as such no past/previous
experience on such posts is required
towards eligibility under the regulations. A
candidate
having
requisite
academic
qualification as per the regulation can thus
be appointed as Assistant Professor even if
he/she has no previous teaching experience.

20. For appointment to the post of
Associate Professor or Professor the
regulations require specified length of
requisite previous teaching experience on
the post of Assistant Professor in case of
Associate
Professor
and
Associate
Professor in case of appointment to the post
of Professor. This requirement is specified
in regulation 4.0 (II) & (III) of the
regulations.

21. Regulation 10 specifies the nature
of past services to be counted for direct
recruitment and also for promotion under
the Career Advancement Scheme. Clause
(e) & (f) of regulation 10 are already
extracted
above
which
provide
that
teaching experience as a guest lecturer or
previous working where the total gross
emoluments was less than the gross
monthly salary of the Assistant Professor
would not be counted towards past services
for direct recruitment to the post of
Assistant Professor.

22. A combined reading of clause (e)
& (f) of regulation 10 undisputedly reveal
that past services to be counted for direct
recruitment or promotion must not be as
guest lecturer for any duration; the essential
qualifications of the post held was not
lower than the qualification prescribed by
UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate
Professor and Professor, as the case may
be;
appointment
was
on
the
recommendation of a duly constituted
selection committee as per applicable rules
of the university; the incumbent drew total
gross emoluments not less than the monthly
gross salary of a regularly appointed
Assistant Professor, Associate Professor
and Professor, as the case may be.

23. The counting of past services
under regulation 10, however, would be
relevant and directly co-related to the post
on which direct appointment or promotion
under CAS itself is sought. Since, past
services are required for appointment to the
post of Associate Professor and Professor
only in the regulations, the relevance of
2 All. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) Vs.Union of India & Ors.
707
regulation 10 would be restricted to these
posts alone.

24. No previous teaching experience
(including Assistant Professor) since is
required
as
eligibility
condition
for
appointment to the post of Assistant
Professor, as such regulation 10 would
have no direct applicability/relevance for
appointment to the post of Assistant
Professor.

25. Eligibility for appointment to the
post of Assistant Professor is distinct from
the criteria to be followed for short-listing
of candidates to be called for interview for
the post of Assistant Professor.

26. Table 3A appended to the
regulations lays down the criteria for shortlisting of candidates to be called for
interview for
the
post
of
Assistant
Professors. Clause 7 of table 3A talks of
teaching/post-doctoral experience and for
each such year a candidate is entitled to
two marks.

27. From the stand taken by the
respondent-university/colleges it transpires
that teaching/post-doctoral experience for
award of two marks for each such year the
respondents have applied regulation 10 of
the
regulations.
Two
marks
towards
teaching/post-doctoral experience for each
year has been allowed to a candidate only if
such teaching is consistent with regulation
10. Even where a candidate has taught for a
year in a recognized institution yet he
would not be entitled to two marks unless
the incumbent drew total gross emoluments
not below the monthly gross salary of a
regularly appointed Assistant Professor.

28. Teaching/post-doctoral experience
occurring in clause 7 of table 3A has not
been defined. It is for this reason that the
respondents have referred to and read the
provisions
of
regulation
10
of
the
regulations into it. This interpretation of the
respondents is the bone of contention in the
present bunch of petitions.

29. Regulation 10 specifically deals
with a defined exigency i.e. counting of
past services for direct recruitment and
promotion under CAS. This exigency is not
attracted in the present set of cases.
Regulation 10 has a direct nexus with the
object sought to be achieved i.e. direct
recruitment and promotion under CAS.
Since
past
services
are
mandatorily
required for appointment to the post of
Associate Professor and Professor only,
therefore,
regulation
10
would
have
relevance
only
for
appointment
and
promotion to such posts.

30. Reference of past services on the
post of Assistant Professor for appointment
to the post of Assistant Professor appears to
be a surplusage since the eligibility for the
post of Assistant Professor does not require
any teaching experience. Counting of past
services
as
Assistant
Professor
for
appointment to the post of Assistant
Professor serves no purpose in the scheme
contained in the regulations. Regulation 10
of the regulations, therefore, has no
applicability
in
the
case
of
direct
appointment to the post of Assistant
Professor.

31. We are persuaded to take such a
view as reference to teaching experience in
table 3A has to be read in conjunction with
post-doctoral experience as they constitute
a composite class in itself. In the event
regulation
10
conditions
teaching
experience,
as
is
suggested
by
the
respondents,
the
term
post-doctoral
708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
experience
would
also
have
to
be
necessarily conditioned by regulation 10.
This, however, does not appear to be the
intent of the scheme contained in the
regulations.

32. Limiting teaching experience to
the experience of teaching as an Assistant
Professor, by drawing emoluments not less
than the monthly gross salary of a regularly
appointed
Assistant
Professor
would
clearly be reading something more than
what is specified in the regulations itself.
Counting of past services for direct
recruitment or promotion under CAS to the
post of Assistant Professor otherwise is not
contemplated. Such a construction would
also be unworkable once a condition of the
kind is attached to the post-doctoral
experiences also.

33. Post-doctoral experiences can be
of different kinds, including research
activity, teaching activity etc. If the
provisions of regulation 10 are applied
while awarding marks in clause 7 of table
3A then an anomalous situation may arise,
inasmuch as teaching experience gathered
by a post-doctoral candidate would entitle
him to two marks if teaching by him is
considered as post-doctoral experience but
such marks would be denied if it is treated
as teaching experience only. It is for this
reason that table 3A of the regulations does
not refer to or rely upon regulation 10. The
interpretation drawn by the respondents to
read regulation 10 in table 3A, which
specifically lays down the criteria for shortlisting of candidates for interview for the
post of Assistant Professors, therefore,
cannot be approved.

34. In our opinion, regulation 10 of the
regulations would be attracted only where
past services are required to be counted for
direct recruitment and promotion under
CAS. It cannot be transposed to be made
applicable in criteria for short-listing of
candidates to be called for interview, to the
post of Assistant Professor, by any
recognized process of interpretation. Such
construction otherwise is not culled out
from
the
scheme
contained
in
the
regulations nor it helps in short-listing of
candidates to be called for interview.

35. Table 3A specifies the marks to be
awarded to a candidate on different
parameters specified therein. Apart from
awarding marks for graduation; postgraduation; M.Phil.; NET with JRF or
NET; SLET/SET the table provides for
teaching/post-doctoral experience of two
marks for each year. Since the term
teaching/post-doctoral experience is not
defined
in
the
regulations
the
ordinary/commonsensical meaning would
have to be assigned to it.

36. Teaching experience as a full time
teacher in a recognized university or its
affiliated or constituent colleges with
requisite qualification as per regulations for
the post of Assistant Professor would
sufficiently entitle a candidate to award of
two marks for each year of teaching
experience in clause 7 of table 3A. Nature
of appointment i.e. substantive/adhoc/guest
lecturer etc. or the amount of salary paid
having not been specified in clause 7 of
table 3A are not relevant for the purposes
of award of marks in clause 7 of table 3A
for short-listing of candidates. Regulation
10 would otherwise not be applicable for
the
reasons
recorded
above.
This
construction would obviate the need to
examine the challenge laid to the regulation
10(f)(iii) and the general instructions
appended to the advertisement in that
regard. It would also effectuate the cause of
2 All. Amity University, NOIDA & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
709
calling best candidates for interview,
inasmuch as teaching experience of a
candidate would be counted towards his merit
for short-listing.

37. The interpretation assigned in this
judgment to clause 7 of table 3A would
subserve the object of short-listing the best
candidates to be called for interview to the post
of Assistant Professors. The selections already
made, however, would not be reopened or
challenged on the ground that short-listing of
candidates was not done in the manner
indicated in this judgment. This is so as the
selected candidates are not a party to this bunch
of petitions nor their selections otherwise have
been
assailed.
The
respondents
would,
henceforth, short-list the candidates to be called
for interview for the post of Assistant Professor
in the manner indicated in this judgment. On
these terms the writ petition, special appeal and
the review application are disposed of. No
order is passed as to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 709
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,
A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Special Appeal No. 637 of 2023

Amity University, NOIDA & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Rahul Chaudhary, Sri G.K. Singh (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ajal Krishna, Sri Rijwa Ali Akhtar,
Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Ashok Khare (Sr.
Advocate)

A.
Education
Law
-
Disciplinary
Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice
- Second respondent, a B.Tech student, was
rusticated for six months (later reduced to three
months) for marking unauthorized "On Duty"
(OD) attendances - Writ Court quashed
rustication orders, citing violation of natural
justice due to lack of formal charge-sheet, nonsupply of adverse material, and enquiry report -
Held, the enquiry was not vitiated as the
student was aware of charges, participated in
multi-level enquiries, and admitted to marking
fake ODs - No material prejudice shown, as per
*ECIL Vs B. Karunakar* and "useless formality"
theory - Enquiry upheld, as procedural lapses
did not invalidate the process given the broadbased investigation involving multiple students
and faculty. (Paras 3, 14, 25, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34,
40)

B. Education Law - Rustication and B+
Grade Cap - Reformative Approach - Student's
rustication led to shortfall in attendance,
resulting in a B+ grade cap under Regulation
10(2)(h) - Writ Court directed removal of B+
cap and deletion of disciplinary references in
mark sheet, adopting a reformative approach -
Held, while B+ cap was a consequence of
rustication, the court declined to interfere with
the Writ Court's lenient view to avoid lifelong
adverse impact on the student's career -
Reformative
approach
upheld,
balancing
discipline
with
student
rehabilitation,
as
supported by *Shivam Kant Vs U.O.I.*. (Paras
3, 38, 39, 42)

C. Education Law - Suspension and
Examination Bar - Procedural Fairness -
Student claimed the University arbitrarily barred
him from filling the End Semester Examination
form on 14.11.2019, before his suspension on
15.11.2019 - Held, no prejudice caused, as
evidence
of
fake
OD
marking
justified
suspension, and the student could not have
appeared in the examination post-suspension -
University's action during ongoing institutional
enquiry (initiated 11.11.2019) was not mala