Allahabad High Court
Dr. S.K. Rai And 13 Others vs Secretary U.G.C. And 2 Others on 20 August, 2015
Bench: Arun Tandon, Bharat Bhushan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 47059 of 2015
Petitioner :- Dr. S.K. Rai And 13 Others
Respondent :- Secretary U.G.C. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.A. Akhtar
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Bharat Bhushan,J.
Petitioners, who are 14 in number, seek quashing of the letter of the Director of Higher Education dated 13.06.2015 which provides for implementation of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (herein after referred to as 'Regulations, 2010').
Under the said circular the Director has provided that in view of the Government Orders dated 03.12.2013 and dated 28.05.2015, the date for enforcement of the Regulations, 2010 would be 30.06.2010 i.e. the date on which the University Grants Commission has notified the Regulation. It has been then provided that all such teachers who become entitled for grant of Career Advancement Scheme (Stage I and II) etc. prior to 30.06.2010 would be entitled for such consideration in accordance with the provision applicable prior to enforcement of Regulations, 2010.
Counsel for the petitioners challenges the said order on the ground that it has the effect of providing retrospective operation to the Regulations, 2010. It is prayed that the respondents may be directed to provide for implementation of Regulations, 2010 w.e.f. 13.06.2015 only. All such teachers who become eligible prior to 13.06.2015 be considered in accordance with the earlier scheme applicable.
The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners may not detained the Court for long.
Regulations, 2010 were enforced by the University Grants Commission on 30.06.2010. The State of U.P. under notification dated 31.12.2010 adopted the said Regulations, 2010 and issued directions to the Universities to make necessary amendments in their Statute. In case such amendments are not made, the Universities were informed that the State Government would exercise powers under Section 50(6) of the State Universities Act for amending the Statute itself. Since the University failed to implement the Regulations, 2010 as aforesaid, the State Government vide notification dated 03.12.2013 in exercise of powers under Section 50(6) of the State Universities Act amended the Statute of all the State Universities.
In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K.V.Jeyaraj & Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC, 363 it is apparent that once the State Government adopts the Regulations of U.G.C., the same become mandatory for all the Universities and the affiliated Degree Colleges.
In our opinion the notification dated 03.12.2013 is only a ministerial act of implementing the adopted of Regulations of 2010 by the State Government. Therefore, the petitioners are not correct in suggesting that the Regulations, 2010 are being given retrospective effect by the State Government specifically in view of the Government Order dated 31.12.2010 enclosed as Annexure-2 to the present petition.
In the facts of the case we find that except for petitioners no. 1 and 11, no other petitioner had become eligible for any Career Advancement prior to 31.12.2010 when the Regulations, 2010 were adopted by the State Government. Therefore, except for petitioners no. 1 and 11 all other petitioners have absolutely no case and their career advancement has necessarily to be determined in accordance with the Regulations, 2010.
The challenge to the letter of the Director dated 13.06.2015 at their behest has no substance.
So far as petitioners no. 1 and 11 are concerned, we find that they had become eligible for being considered for Career Advancement on a date between 30.06.2010 to 31.12.2010 i.e. between the notification of the Regulation and the adoption of the Regulation by the State Government.
Although under the letter of the Director dated 13.06.2015, claim of teachers who became entitled for Career Advancement on a date prior to 30.06.2010 has been directed to be considered in accordance with the provisions applicable prior to the Regulations, 2010 but so far as teachers like petitioners no. 1 and 11 are concerned, no separate decision has been taken.
In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan (Supra), it is the date on which the State Government adopts the UGC Regulations, which would be crucial for its being applied mandatorily.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the State Government must revisit the matter in respect of the persons like the petitioners no. 1 and 11 who had become eligible for grant of Career Advancement between 30.06.2010 to 31.12.2010, keeping in mind the law laid down in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan (Supra). The said exercise may be completed by the State Government within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before respondent no. 2.
All consequential action shall be taken accordingly.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.8.2015
VR
