# UNIVERSITY OF DELHI v. RAJ SINGH

- **Citation:** [1994] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 217
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1994-09-08
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1819 of 1994
- **Bench:** Am. Ahmadi, S.P. Bharucha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/university-of-delhi-v-raj-singh-12344
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

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 lecturers-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 withholding 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 Parliament 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 ( Qualifications 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 University was an autonom

## Text

_Characters 0–39,872 of 65,854. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39872 for what follows._

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 lecturers-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 withholding 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 Parliament 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 ( Qualifications 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 University 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 ResourB
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 standards of teaching". These are wide-ranging powers, and comprehend the
power to conduct a written test to establish minimal proficiency for holding 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 University 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 co7ordination 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 recommendatory 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 Regulations 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) Regulations, 1991, notified on 19th September, 1991, by the University Grants
Commission (the second respondent in this appeal) were valid and mandatory 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 candidates 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 University 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 University". 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 instrucA
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 institutions 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, Principals 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 University.
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 possessing 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-ordination 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 determination 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 consultation 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 Commission 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 consistent 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 recommendations 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 recommendations 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 "Professional 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 Universities and colleges". The Mehrotra Committee noted what the Sen ComF
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 recommendation 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 examination 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 maintenance ·of standards in higher education. The letter stated that the
Government of India had, after taking into consideration the recommendations 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 addressed. A scheme for the revision of pay-scales was appended to the
letter, which would be applicable to teachers in all the Central Universities, the colleges in Delhi and the institutions deemed to be University
whose maintenance expenditure was met by the U.G.C. The implementation 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 Mudhokar 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 legislaE
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 universities, 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 "determination" 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 undertaken 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 submission 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 nothC
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 maintained. 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.