Ashutosh Kumar Singh And 20 Others vs Union Of India And 6 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 5466 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved
 
AFR
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41603 of 2016
 
Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar Singh And 20 Others
 
Respondent :- Union of India And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranav Kumar Srivastava; Ashutosh Kumar Singh; Shri Gajendra Pratap
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.; Anjana Singh; Gautam Baghel; Hridai Narayan Mishra; Neeraj Tripathi; Rijwan Ali Akhtar
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.

1. The petitioners before this Court are research scholars enrolled in the Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology of the University of Allahabad (in short the University) and are separately carrying their research programme under research supervisors allotted by the University.

2. The research supervisors allotted for supervising the research programme of the petitioners were either retired, or about to retire, teachers of the University. However, by now, before the petitioners could complete their research work, the research supervisors initially allotted to the petitioners have all superannuated. When it came to the knowledge of the Dean, Faculty of Arts, University of Allahabad, that there were research scholars in the University who were pursuing their research programme under supervision of teachers who have already superannuated, a written request was made, vide circular letter dated 11.08.2016, to all Heads of the Departments, Faculty of Arts, University of Allahabad, to convene a meeting of the Doctoral Programme Committee of the Department for recommending change of supervisors to replace the supervisors who have superannuated. The said request was made by placing reliance on para 6.2 of University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/ Ph.D Degrees) Regulations, 2016 (in short UGC Regulations, 2016), dated 05.05.2016, where under only a full time regular teacher of the University could act as supervisor.

3. Aggrieved by the circular letter dated 11.08.2016, the present petition has been filed.

4. It is claimed by the petitioners that the circular wrongly places reliance on paragraph 6.2 of UGC Regulations, 2016 inasmuch as paragraph 12 of Regulations, 2016 specifically provide that award of degrees to candidates registered for the M. Phil. / Ph.D. programme on or after July 11, 2009 till the date of notification of Regulations, 2016 would be governed by the provisions of the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M. Phil. /Ph. D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 (in short Regulations, 2009), which do not provide that a regular full time teacher could alone be a research supervisor.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the Regulations, 2009 carry no provision that the research supervisors would have to be a regular teacher in the University. Therefore, in absence of any prohibition in appointment of a retired former teacher as a research supervisor, the research supervisor, even if he superannuates, could continue as such. It is thus the case of the petitioners that the impugned circular dated 11.08.2016 has been issued without considering the import of paragraph 12 of the Regulations, 2016 and is therefore liable to be quashed.

6. The petitioners claim that they all had been enrolled for the research programme much before the notification of Regulations, 2016 and as they had substantially completed their research work under the previously allotted research supervisor and therefore change of their research supervisor, at this stage, would cause them immense hardship and may derail their research work.

7. In response to the petition, counter-affidavits have been filed by Sri N.K. Shukla, Registrar, University of Allahabad, on behalf of the University, and by Professor (Dr.) Jaspal S. Sandhu, Secretary, University Grants Commission (in short UGC) (the second respondent), on behalf of UGC.

8. The stand of UGC is that a careful reading of the Regulations, 2009 would suggest that a research supervisor both for M. Phil and Ph.D. Programmes is to be from the available eligible faculty members. It is the case of UGC that the Regulations, 2009 do not contemplate appointment of a retired teacher as research supervisor, inasmuch as, a retired teacher could never be part of the faculty of a University. It is further the case of UGC that the Regulations made by UGC are binding on the University and, therefore, if the research supervisors have not been appointed as per the mandate of UGC Regulations, the research programme undertaken may not bear fruit.

9. The stand of the University is that at the time of allotting research supervisors to petitioner nos. 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 and 21 inadvertently UGC Regulations, 2009 were ignored inasmuch as the research supervisors allotted to them had already superannuated. The University has brought on record a letter dated 06th July, 2015 written by the Secretary, UGC to the Vice-Chancellor of the University whereby the University was informed that research supervisors should be allocated from amongst the regular faculty members in a department of the University or its affiliated PG Colleges/Institutes and any Ph.D / M.Phil Degree awarded by the University to a research scholar who has undertaken the research work under the supervision of a supervisor who is not a faculty member of a University or its affiliated PG Colleges/Institutes would be in violation of UGC Regulations, 2009. The stand of the University therefore is that to remove the anomaly, the impugned circular was issued so as to make the research programme undertaken by the petitioners in conformity with the Regulations, 2009.

10. I have heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Pranav Kumar Srivastava, for the petitioners; Sri Gautam Baghel for the respondents 3 to 7 (University of Allahabad and its officers); and Miss Anjana Singh for the respondent no.2 (UGC) and have perused the record.

11. Before proceeding to notice and analyze the rival submissions, it would be useful to first examine the relevant provisions on which the issue turns.

12. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (In short 'UGC Act') is a Central Act to make provision for the co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities and for that purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission. Section 12 of the UGC Act enumerates various functions of the Commission. Section 26 confers power on the Commission to make regulations consistent with the Act and the Rules made thereunder. For the case at hand, sub-section (1) and its clauses (e), (f) and (g) as well as sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the UGC Act are relevant, which are extracted hereunder:-

Section 26. Power to make regulations.-- (1): The Commission may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder.---

(a) to (d).......................

(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 branch of education in which he is expected to give instructions;

(f) defining the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any University;

(g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the co-ordination of work or facilities in Universities.

(h) to (j).........

(2).................

(3) The power to make regulations conferred by this section except clause (i) and clause (j) of sub-section (1) shall include the power to give retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, to the regulations or any of them but no retrospective effect shall be given to any regulation so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such regulation may be applicable."

13. In exercise of powers conferred by clause (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, the UGC by Notification dated 1st June, 2009, published in the Official Gazette of India on July 11, 2009, notified UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M.Phil / Ph.D. Degree), Regulations, 2009 (In short Regulations, 2009). Regulation 2 of Regulations, 2009 provides that they shall apply to every University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every Institution including a constituent or an affiliated College recognized by the Commission, in consultation with the University concerned under clause (1) of Section 2 of the UGC Act, 1956, and every institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act. Regulation 4 of Regulations, 2009 provides that all Universities, Institutions deemed to be Universities and Colleges /Institutions of National Importance shall be eligible for conducting M.Phil and Ph.D. Programme.

Regulations 6 to 8 of Regulations, 2009 provides for the eligibility criteria for M.Phil/ Ph.D. Supervisor as under:-

" ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR M. PHIL/ PH.D. SUPERVISOR

6.-All Universities, Institutions, Deemed to be Universities and Colleges/ Institutions of National Importance shall lay down the criteria for the faculty to be recognized as Research Supervisor both for M.Phil and Ph.D. Programmes.

7.- All Universities, Institutions, Deemed to be Universities and Colleges/ Institutions of National Importance shall lay down and decide on annual basis, a predetermined and manageable number of M.Phil and doctoral students depending on the number of the available eligible Faculty Supervisor. A Supervisor shall not have, at any given point of time, more than Eight Ph.D. Scholars and Five M.Phil Scholars.

8.- The number of seats for M.Phil and Ph.D shall be decided well in advance and notified in the University website or advertisement. All Universities, Institutions, Deemed to be Universities and Colleges/ Institutions of National Importance shall widely advertise the number of available seats for M.Phil/Ph.D studies and conduct admission on regular basis."

(Emphasis supplied)

Regulation 12 of the Regulations, 2009 provides for allocation of supervisor as under:

"The allocation of the supervisors for a selected student shall be decided by the Department in a formal manner depending on the number of student per faculty member, the available specialization among the faculty supervisors, and the research interest of the student as indicated during interview by the student. The allotment/allocation of supervisor shall not be left to the individual student or teacher."

(Emphasis supplied)

14. In supersession of the UGC 2009 Regulations, the University Grants Commission, vide notification dated 05th May, 2016, notified University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree), Regulations, 2016 (In short Regulations, 2016). The said regulations were again made applicable to all the Universities established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act as well as every affiliated Colleges and every Institutions deemed to be Universities under Section 3 of UGC Act. The said Regulations were made applicable from the date of their publication in the Gazette of India.

Regulation 6 of the Regulations, 2016 provides for allocation of research supervisors as under:-

"6- Allocation of Research Supervisor: Eligibility criteria to be a Research Supervisor, Co-Supervisor, Number of M.Phil /Ph.D. Scholars permissible per Supervisor, etc.

6.1 Any regular Professor of the University/ Institution Deemed to be a University/ College with at least five research publications in refereed journals and any regular Associate/Assistant Professor of the university/ institution deemed to be a university/ college with a Ph.D. degree and at least two research publications in referred journals may be recognized as Research Supervisor.

Provided that in areas/disciplines where there is no or only a limited number of referred journals, the Institution may relax the above condition for recognition of a person as Research Supervisor with reasons recorded in writing.

6.2 Only a full time regular teacher of the concerned University/ Institution Deemed to be a University/ College can act as a supervisor. The external supervisors are not allowed. However, Co- Supervisor can be allowed in inter-disciplinary areas from other departments of the same institute or from other related institutions with the approval of the Research Advisory Committee.

6.3 The allocation of Research Supervisor for a selected research scholar shall be decided by the Department concerned depending on the number of scholars per Research Supervisor, the available specialization among the Supervisors and research interests of the scholars as indicated by them at the time of interview/ viva voce.

6.4 In case of topics which are of inter-disciplinary nature where the Department concerned feels that the expertise in the Department has to be supplemented from outside, the Department may appoint a Research Supervisor from the Department itself, who shall be known as the Research Supervisor, and a Co-Supervisor from outside the Department/ Faculty/ College/ Institution on such terms and conditions as may be specified and agreed upon by the consenting Institutions/ Colleges.

6.5 A Research Supervisor/ Co-supervisor who is a Professor, at any given point of time, cannot guide more than three (3) M.Phil. and Eight (8) Ph.D. scholars. An Associate Professor as Research Supervisor can guide up to a maximum of two (2) M.Phil. and six (6) Ph.D. scholars and an Assistant Professor as Research Supervisor can guide up to a maximum of one (1) M. Phil. and four (4) Ph.D. scholars.

6.6 In case of relocation of an M. Phil/ Ph.D. woman scholar due to marriage or otherwise, the research data shall be allowed to be transferred to the University to which the scholar intends to relocate provided all the other conditions in these regulations are followed in letter and spirit and the research work does not pertain to the project secured by the parent institution/ supervisor from any funding agency. The scholar will however give due credit to the parent guide and the institution for the part of research already done."

Regulation 12 of the Regulations 2016 provides as under:-

"12. Award of M.Phil./ Ph.D. degrees prior to Notification of these Regulations, or degrees awarded by foreign Universities:

12.1 Award of degrees to candidates registered for the M.Phil./ Ph.D. programme on or after July 11, 2009 till the date of Notification of these Regulations shall be governed by the provisions of the UGC (Minimum Standards and procedure for Awards of M.Phil/ Ph.D Degree) Regulation, 2009.

12.2 If the M.Phil./ Ph.D. degree is awarded by a Foreign University, the Indian Institution considering such a degree shall refer the issue to a Standing Committee constituted by the concerned institution for the purpose of determining the equivalence of the degree awarded by the foreign University."

15. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows:-

(a) That the Regulations, 2009 left it open to the University to lay down the criteria for the faculty to be recognized as Research Supervisor both for M. Phil and Ph. D programmes. It nowhere provides that the person recognized as a Research Supervisor should be a regular teacher and should not have superannuated.

(b) That the University of Allahabad by its Ordinances have framed eligibility qualifications for appointment as Supervisor. Paragraph 3 (a) (i) of Schedule I to Ordinance LVI leaves it open to the University to recommend a locally resident former teacher of the Department who is working in the Laboratories or otherwise actively participating in the academic activities thereof as Supervisor. Accordingly, the various Research Supervisors allotted by the University for the research programme conducted by the petitioners, even if they had superannuated, were legally qualified to act and continue as research supervisor.

(c) That regulation 12 of Regulations, 2016 clearly provide that award of degrees to candidates registered for the M.Phil. /Ph.D. programme on or after July 11, 2009 till the date of notification of the Regulations, 2016 would be governed by the provisions of the Regulations, 2009, therefore, the Regulations, 2016 were not applicable to the petitioners who were all registered prior to the notification of Regulations, 2016 and as such the impugned circular to that extent was illegal and cannot be applied to the petitioners.

(d) That for the first time in the Regulations, 2016 it was specifically provided that a Research Supervisor would have to be a full time regular teacher of the concerned University/ Institution deemed to be a University/ College whereas there was no such restriction in Regulations, 2009, therefore, the provisions of the Regulations, 2016 should be taken as an external aid to understand the import of the Regulations, 2009. And, in that context, it should be understood that the Regulations, 2009 did not proscribe appointment of a retired teacher as a research supervisor if he otherwise qualified the criteria laid down by the University for being appointed as such.

(e) That in view of the provisions of the Regulations, 2009 and the University Ordinance LVI (para 3 (a) (i) of Schedule I) there was no legal justification for the University of Allahabad to seek for change of the research supervisors on the ground that they had superannuated.

16. In reply, the submissions of the learned counsel for UGC is that regulation 6 of Regulations, 2009 enables the University, Institutions deemed to be a University and Colleges/ Institutions of National Importance to lay down the criteria for the faculty to be recognized as Research Supervisor both for M. Phil and Ph. D. Programmes which means that only a member of the faculty could be recognized as Research Supervisor. It would mean that a research supervisor can be selected from the faculty and not from retired teachers. It has been submitted that the use of words "available eligible faculty supervisors" in regulation 7 of Regulations, 2009 are also of significance which suggest that supervisors should be from available faculty members who are eligible. It has also been submitted that the use of words "per faculty member" in regulation 12 also suggests that the research supervisor should be a part of the faculty. In nut shell the submission on behalf of UGC is that in the Regulations, 2009 it was implicit that research supervisor should not be a superannuated teacher but should be a part of the faculty and therefore what was implicit in Regulations, 2009 has been made explicit in the Regulations, 2016.

17. The learned counsel for the University has adopted the submissions made on behalf of the UGC and has submitted that the University is bound by the UGC Regulations.

18. To appreciate the rival submissions, the import of the term "faculty" used in Regulations, 2009 needs to be examined in the context of rival submissions.

19. The word "faculty" is not defined in either the UGC Act, 1956 or the UGC Regulations, 2009 or 2016. Section 3(m) of the University of Allahabad Act, 2005 (in short Act, 2005) defines "faculty". It states that "faculty means a faculty of the University". Section 26 of the Act, 2005 provides that the University shall have such faculties as are prescribed by the Statutes. It further provides that each faculty shall have such Departments as are prescribed by the Statutes, and each Department shall have such subjects of study as may be assigned to it by the Ordinances. Statute 14 of the Statutes of the University, framed under Section 28 of the Act, 2005, provides that the University shall have the following Faculties, namely:--

(i) the Faculty of Arts;

(ii) the Faculty of Commerce;

(iii) the Faculty of Law;

(iv) the Faculty of Medicine; and

(v) the Faculty of Science.

20. In the provisions of the Act, 2005, as noticed herein above, the term " faculty" is referred to as a Department of Learning and not a body of teachers in reference to the Department. In fact, the Act, 2005 specifically defines teacher in section 3(u) as:- "teacher" means Professors, Readers and Lecturers appointed or recognized by the University."

21. Taking aid from the definition of teacher provided by section 3(u) of the Act, 2005, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the use of the word "or" before the phrase "recognized by the University" in section 3(u) of Act, 2005 is of significance. It divides teachers into two different classes. One comprising the Professors, Readers and Lecturers appointed by the University and the other who are recognized by the University as teachers. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the University vide para 3(a)(i) of Schedule I to Ordinance LVI has recognized even retired former teachers eligible for being appointed as Research Supervisor, they, by default, would have to be taken as part of the faculty for the purpose of supervising research programmes.

22. Per contra, the stand of the counsel for the UGC and of the University in that regard is that the use of the word "faculty" in regulation 6 of Regulations, 2009 is to be understood in the context in which it has been used. Because Regulations, 2009 uses the word "faculty" not as a Department of Learning, as is used by the Act, 2005 and the statutes framed thereunder, but as a group of persons who have right, authority or privilege to give such dispensation in the concerned Department of Learning. According to the respondents' counsel faculty in Regulations, 2009 refers to a body of teachers of a concerned Department of the University, Institutions deemed to be a University and Colleges /Institutions of National Importance who have the privilege to teach or engage in such dispensation as the University may deem fit. Therefore the University can appoint Research Supervisors only from such teachers who are part of the faculty in that sense.

23. It has also been submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of UGC that any subsequent clarification made in Regulations, 2016 would not amount to a declaration that such position was not obtaining under the previous Regulations, 2009 because the Regulations, 2016 only made a requirement explicit which was implicit in the earlier Regulations, 2009. It is thus the case of the respondents that the petitioners cannot claim any benefit of paragraph 12 of the Regulations, 2016.

24. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the provisions extracted herein above carefully. Before dealing with the weight of rival submissions it would be useful to examine various dictionary meaning of the term 'faculty". The Oxford Universal Dictionary provides for the meaning of faculty as follows:

"I. The power of doing anything. An ability or aptitude, whether natural or acquired, for any special kind of action; formerly also, ability in general. A power or capacity. A physical capacity or function. One of the powers of the mind e.g. the will, the reason, memory.

II. A department of knowledge. One of the department of learning at a University. An art, trade, occupation, profession. The whole body of Masters, Doctors in any one of the studies. The members of a profession regarded as one body.

III. Power, liberty, or right of doing something conferred by law or favour. A dispensation, licence granted by an eccl. Superior to some one to do something which otherwise he could not legally do."

Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary provides for the meaning of faculty as follows:

"1. That power of the mind or intellect which enables it to receive, revive or modify perceptions; as, the faculty of seeing, of hearing, of imagining, of remembering.

2. Facility of performance; the peculiar skill derived from practice, or practice aided by nature; habitual skill or ability; dexterity; adroitness; knack; as, one has remarkable faculty of telling a story.

3. Power; authority.

4. In the Roman Catholic church, a privilege; a right or power granted to a person by favour or indulgence, to do what by law he may not do; specifically, an authorization by a superior bestowing ecclesiastical rights upon a subordinate; often used in the plural.

5. The individuals constituting a scientific profession, or a branch of one, taken collectively; especially, the medical profession.

6. Collectively, the masters and professors of the several departments of a university, or any one of the departments; as the faculty of arts, of theology, of medicine, or of law."

According to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases Faculty means: "Faculty signifies a privilege or special dispensation, granted unto a man by favour and indulgence to do that which by the law he cannot do."

According to Black's Law Dictionary faculty means: Ability; power; capability. Teaching staff of school.

Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyer provides multiple meaning for the term faculty: (a) Faculty means a Faculty of the University; (b) A department of learning at a University, or the professors constituting it; (c) Right, authority or privilege to act; (d) Colleges, a body of instructors (as) Faculty of Arts. 'Faculty' signifies a privilege or special dispensation, granted unto a man by favour and indulgence to do that which by the law he cannot otherwise do." In ecclesiastical affairs, properly speaking, it is a license issued by the ordinary through his Consistorial Court, to effect certain alterations of a grave character in a parish church.

25. Having examined different meanings of the term "faculty", as to what meaning is to be attributed to the said term in the Regulations, 2009 has to be found out with reference to the context in which it has been used in the said Regulations. A perusal of regulation 6 of Regulations, 2009 would go to show that the term "faculty" used therein is not in reference to a department of learning but with reference to a body of teachers, which is clear from the use of phrase "all Universities...shall lay down the criteria for the faculty to be recognized as Research Supervisor". A department of learning cannot be recognized as a Research Supervisor, inasmuch as, a Research Supervisor by necessary implication has to be a person. When the term "faculty" is construed as a body of teachers then the correct interpretation of regulation 6 would be that all Universities, Institutions deemed to be Universities and Colleges/ Institutions of National Importance would have to lay down the criteria for recognizing a person from amongst the body of teachers of the Department concerned as a Research Supervisor both for M.Phil and Ph.D. Programmes. The above interpretation is consistent with the requirement to determine manageable number of M. Phil and doctoral students on an annual basis dependent on available eligible Faculty Supervisors, as provided by regulation 7 of the Regulations, 2009. The view that Research Supervisors are to be recognized from the body of teachers available with the University, by necessary implication, exclude those who have retired and are not part of the faculty, inasmuch as, if former retired teachers, who are not part of the faculty, are to be included then the need to have an annual determination of a manageable number of M. Phil and doctoral students on the basis of the number of available eligible Faculty Supervisors would not arise.

26. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that introduction of specific provision in Regulations, 2016 that "only a full time regular teacher" can act as Research Supervisor should be construed as departure from earlier practice and, therefore, Regulations, 2009 should be interpreted accordingly, cannot be accepted because, ordinarily, a later statute is not used as an aid for construction of an earlier one (vide Vaijnath v. Guramma, (1999) 1 SCC 292) though when an earlier Act is truly ambiguous and is readily capable of diverse interpretation a later Act may in certain circumstances serve as parliamentary exposition of the former. In State of Bihar v. S.K. Roy, AIR 1966 SC 1995, the apex court held that "it is a well recognized principle in dealing with matters of construction that subsequent legislation may be looked at in order to see what is the proper interpretation to be put upon the earlier Act where the earlier Act is obscure or ambiguous or readily capable of more than one interpretation". In S.K. Roy's case (supra), the apex court after examining the provisions of the unamended Act and the subsequent amending Act, held that the change in the language of the earlier Act brought about by the amending Act was not meant to bring about a change of law in that respect but was meant to fix a proper interpretation upon the earlier Act.

27. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the view that Regulation 6.2 of the Regulations, 2016 by providing that only a full time regular teacher can act as supervisor only made the requirement specific what was already implicit in the earlier Regulations 6 and 7 of the Regulations, 2009. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the clarificatory letter issued by the UGC dated 06th July, 2015, which has been brought on record as Annexure CA-2 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the University of Allahabad, declaring that Universities shall allocate research supervisors from among the regular faculty members in a department, is in consonance with the provisions of the Regulations, 2009.

28. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of section 3(u) of the Act, 2005 coupled with para 3(a) (i) of Schedule I of Ordinance LVI, the University could recognize certain categories of former teachers as research supervisors, therefore even retired teachers could serve as research supervisor, even if they are not part of the faculty, cannot be accepted because the aforesaid provision of the Ordinance LVI is in conflict with the UGC Regulations, 2009 and appears to have been made before the notification of Regulations, 2009. Once the Regulations, 2009 came into force, the Ordinances to the extent they are in conflict with the UGC Regulations cannot be enforced, inasmuch as, the Apex Court in Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and others (2015) 6 SCC 363, has held that UGC Regulations once passed by both the House of Parliament, though a sub-ordinate legislation, has binding effect on the Universities to which it applies. Thus, the Ordinances framed by the University of Allahabad would not have precedence over the UGC Regulations, 2009.

29. For the reasons recorded above, this Court concludes as follows:

(a) The term faculty as used in UGC Regulations, 2009 means a body of teachers in a Department of the University and does not include those who are no longer part of the faculty consequent to their retirement or otherwise;

(b) A fortiori, even under the UGC Regulations, 2009, a Research Supervisor would have had to be selected from amongst the available faculty members who have been recognized as eligible for the purpose; and

(c) UGC Regulations, 2016 do not introduce the above requirement for the first time but only reiterate in a more emphatic manner of what was implicit in the Regulations, 2009.

30. In view of the conclusions drawn herein above, the directive issued by the UGC and the University to replace the research supervisors who had superannuated cannot be faulted.

31. As it appears from the amendments carried out in the petition, during the pendency of the petition, that already fresh research supervisors, who are in active service, have been allotted to the petitioners, no direction need be issued to the University to allocate fresh research supervisor to enable the petitioners to complete their research work.

32. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 13.10.2017

Sunil Kr Tiwari