Gujarat High Court
Rajendrakumar Hagovandas Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 13 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7661 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
RAJENDRAKUMAR HAGOVANDAS PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DR. POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 - STATE
MS. DISHA NANAVATI FOR MR MITUL K SHELAT(2419) for the
Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 13/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the
respective respondents waive service of notice of rule on
behalf of respective respondents. With the consent of the
parties, the matter is considered at length and disposed of
accordingly.
1. The present petition is filed for seeking the following
reliefs:
"7. The petitioner respectfully prays that, on the basis of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove and
which may be urged at the time of hearing, the Honourable
Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent
authorities and may be pleased to :-
(A) declare and hold that the part-time teachers in
Government aided private colleges are entitled to the pay-
scale on proportionate basis, and
(B) direct the respondent authorities to make payment of
emoluments to the petitioner on proportionate pay-scale
basis, and
(C) award the cost of this petition, and
(D) pending admission and final disposal of this petition the
Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the Government
to reconsider its decision dated 10.10.2007, and
E) grant any other relief or pass any other order which the
Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the
petitioner, Ms. Disha Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned advocate for the
respondent No.3, and Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned AGP for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
respondent - State.
3. Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner
has submitted that the issues involved in the present petition
is covered by the judgment dated 08.09.2015 passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Civil Application
No.7212 of 2015 in Special Civil Application No. 10240 of
2012 with Special Civil Application No. 10240 of 2012 and
allied matters.
4. Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned AGP for the respondent -
State has submitted that against the aforesaid judgment
dated 08.09.2015, Letters Patent Appeal being Letters Patent
Appeal No. 396 of 2016 has been preferred by the State,
which is pending before the Division Bench of this Court.
5. I have considered the submissions made at the bar by
the respective parties. Considering the fact that issues
involved in the present petition is covered by the judgment
dated 08.09.2015 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court rendered in Civil Application No.7212 of 2015 in
Special Civil Application No. 10240 of 2012 with Special Civil
Application No. 10240 of 2012 and allied matters, for
consideration of the prayers in the present petition, which
are having almost identical facts with Civil Application
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
No.7212 of 2015 in Special Civil Application No. 10240 of
2012 with Special Civil Application No. 10240 of 2012 and
allied matters, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant
paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment dated 08.09.2015, which
read as under:
"1. By this writ-application, the petitioners have prayed
for the following reliefs:-
"(A) To quash and set aside the impugned resolution dated
17.01.2012
(AA) To direct respondents and respondent no.1, 2 and 3 in
particular to pay to the part time college teachers
half/proportionate amount of the basic of the scale being
paid at present to full time college teachers and
proportionate increment, dearness allowance and other
permissible benefits."
10(AA) with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006, the date
from which recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission
were made applicable to the full Time College Teachers
based on the decision of the Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Department of Higher Education, Government
of India, dated 31.12.2008 and consequent resolution of the
respondent State of Gujarat dated 11.11.2009 to implement
the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations and to revise
the pay scale for the Full Time College Teachers of
Government Colleges, University Teachers and Teachers of
Affiliated Colleges.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
(B) To direct the respondents and the respondent State of
Gujarat, Department of Higher Education in particular to
consider giving pro rata revision in pay scales and fixed
salary structure to the part-time lecturers including the
petitioners teaching in affiliated Colleges and recognized
Institutions affiliated to the respondent Gujarat University
and other Universities on a pro-rata basis compared to the
pay scales and salary structures of the full-time college
lecturers in the context of Sixth Pay Commission;
10(B) with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006, the date
from which recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission
were made applicable to the Full Time College Teachers
based on the decision of the Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Department of Higher Education, Government
of India, dated 31.12.2008 and consequent resolution of the
respondent State of Gujarat dated 11.11.2009 to implement
the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations and to revise
the pay scale for the Full Time College Teachers of
Government Colleges. University Teachers and Teachers of
Affiliated Colleges.
(C) During the pendency and/or final disposal of the present
petition, be pleased to direct respondents to place on record
the actual decision in writing taken by the respondents
pursuant to order passed by the Hon'ble Court dated
29.06.2011 in Special Civil Application No.7909 of 2011 and
written and oral representations made by part time
lecturers thereafter;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
(D) During the pendency and/or final disposal of the
present petition, be pleased to direct the respondents and
the respondent State of Gujarat, Department of Higher
Education in particular to consider giving pro rata revision
in pay scales and fixed salary structure to the part-time
lecturers including the petitioners teaching in affiliated
Colleges and recognized Institutions affiliated to the
respondent Gujarat University and other Universities on a
pro rata basis compared to the pay scales and salary
structures of the full-time college lecturers in the context of
Sixth Pay Commission;
(E) To award the costs of this petition;
(F) to pass such other and further order/s as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. The petitioner No.1 is an Association of the part
time lecturers in the State of Gujarat. The members of the
Association are teaching in the colleges/institutions affiliated
to the respective universities in the State of Gujarat. In all
there are about 300 part time lecturers. The Association
has been taking care of the grievances and problems of the
part time lecturers in the State of Gujarat since long.
3. The petitioner No.2 claims to be a senior most part
time Professor teaching in the college affiliated to the
respondent Gujarat University. He has been teaching since
more than 30 years. At present he has been posted in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
Commerce College, Ahmedabad and also at the Arts
College, Ahmedabad.
4. The petitioner No.3 is also a part time college
teacher serving past more than 14 years in the Arts and
Commerce College, Balasind, Kheda.
5. The principle challenge in the present writ-petition is
to the resolution dated 17th January, 2012 passed by the
State of Gujarat, Department of Higher Education whereby
the pay scales and fixed salary structure along with the
allowances for the part time college lecturers were revised
and fixed. The part time college teachers are dissatisfied
with the said revision and fixation of the pay scales mainly
due to the following:-
(a) The revision is very insignificant.
(b) As against the recommendation of the UGC, the rise
given by way of revision in the pay scale of the part time
lecturers is not pro rata in comparison to the revision
introduced for the full time lecturers on implementation of
the Sixth Pay Commission recommendation by the
respondent State of Gujarat.
The UGC has been insisting that the part time and full
time lecturers in the Country should be provided with a
revision in the pay scale on a pro rata basis with whatever
difference there may be in the respective pay scale and the
fixed salary between the part time and full time lecturers.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
(c) Even though part time and full time lecturers may
constitute a separate class, yet the revision introduced by
the impugned resolution is unjustified because the very
factors considered for revision in the pay scale for the full
time lecturers are applicable with the same force to the
part time lectures and therefore, the revision is nothing but
an eyewash.
(d) On one hand the State of Gujarat has accepted the
recommendations of the UGC by giving a rise, though
insignificant, and on the other hand by not revising the
pay scale on a pro rata basis in comparison to the full
time lecturers, the State of Gujarat has resorted to absolute
discrimination.
(e) The UGC has also issued direction to the Registrar,
Gujarat University for revision in the pay-scales and fixed
salary structure for the guest as well as part-time lecturers
of the colleges affiliated to it in February 2010. The UGC
has not approved such disparity and it does not distinguish
between the part time and full time lecturers for the
purpose of revision.
6. This litigation has a history with regard to the
revision of the pay scale for the part time lecturers. The
part time college lecturers had first approached this Court
by filing the Special Civil Application No.10802 of 2003
wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased
to issue directions to the State of Gujarat vide order dated
29th July, 2003 to consider the revision in the pay scale
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
and fixed salary structure for the part time lecturers.
7. It appears from the materials on record that the
State of Gujarat effected the revision by a resolution dated
17th February, 2004. In the year 2006, three writ-
applications were filed (1) Special Civil Application No.21438
of 2006 (2) Special Civil Application No. 21439 of 2006 (3)
Special Civil Application No. 21637 of 2006. Those writ
petitions were disposed of by this Court vide order dated
10th October, 2006 directing the State of Gujarat to
consider the revision in the pay scale for the part time
lecturers as more then three years had passed since the
last revision was actually given effect to.
8. It appears that the State of Gujarat therefore,
revised the fixed salary structure by a resolution dated
10th October, 2007. It appears that on account of the
intervention of this Court the State effected the revision
the pay scale every three years.
9. After 2007, no revision was effected and the State
Government did not consider the question of implementing
the 6th Pay Commission recommendation in the case of the
part time lecturers.
10. It appears that as more then four years had passed
after the pay revision was introduced in the year 2007 and
as the State Government decided not to revise the pay
scale for the part time lecturers having implemented the
6th Pay Commission recommendation for the full time
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
lecturers one more writ-application was disposed of by this
Court vide order dated 27th May, 2011 asking the part
time lecturers to prefer a representation to the State
Government in that regard.
11. It appears that pursuant to the representation filed
by the part time lecturers they were heard in person by
the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education,
Government of Gujarat.
12. The State Government after taking into consideration
the representation passed the impugned order resolution
dated 16th January, 2012 revising the pay scale of the
fixed salary for the part time lecturers in the State of
Gujarat.
13. It is the case of the petitioners that the revision is
absolutely insignificant and they have been throughly
discriminated with the full time lecturers. It is there case
that the pro rata increase by revision in the pay scale and
the fixed salary have been denied to them. They seek
parity in the pay scale in terms of the revision and pro
rata increase.
14. The petitioners have placed on record a chart
showing the pro rata calculations comparing the revised pay
scale sanctioned in favour of the full time lecturers with
that of the part time lecturers. The petitioner have also
placed on record one another chart highlighting the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
disparity between the pay scale and the salary structure of
the full time Professors as against the revised pay scale
and the fixed salary structure provided by the impugned
resolution dated 17th January, 2012.
15. Being dissatisfied with such action on the part of the
State Government they have come up with this writ-
application.
Submission of behalf of the petitioners
16. Mr. A.J. Yagnik, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners vehemently submitted that the impugned
resolution is highly discriminatory and violative of the
Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 39(a), 39(c), 39(d), 41 and 42 of
the Constitution of India.
17. Mr. Yagnik invited the attention of the Court to the
University Grants Commission (UGC) Notification on the
revision of pay scales, minimum qualifications for the
appointment of teachers in Universities and Colleges and
Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards, 1998.
Mr. Yagnik invited my attention to clause (12) of the said
Notification with regard to the part time teachers. Clause
(12) reads as under:-
"12.0.0 PART-TIME TEACHERS
The minimum qualifications for appointment of part-time
teachers should be the same as that of regular teachers
and selected by regularly constituted Selection Committee.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
The part-time teachers should be appointed only in
exceptional circumstances when it is appropriate to
requirements of the institution in terms of subjects to be
taught or workload. They can be appointed on a contract
appointment if only for a short period or as permanent
half-time/proportionate time employees against
half/proportionate salary of the scale (and should include
proportionate increments, dearness allowance and any other
permissible benefits). Such permanent part-time teachers
will also be entitled to the scheme of Career Advancement
from Lecturer to Senior Scale Lecturer, Selection Grade
Lecturer/Reader, and Professor. However, they will be
entitled to half/proportionate amount of the basic of the
scale and proportionate increments, dearness allowance and
any other permissible benefits."
18. Mr. Yagnik also invited my attention to a letter
addressed by the University Grants Commission to the
Registrar, South Gujarat University, Surat dated 5th
February, 2010 as regards the revised guidelines in the
scheme of appointment/honorarium of guest/part time
teachers. The letter reads thus:-
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARK
NEW DELHI, 110002
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
No.F.10-1/2009(PS) February, 2010
"The Registrar,
South Gujarat University,
Surat-395007
Sub.: Revised Guidelines for the Scheme of
Appointment/Honorarium of Guest/Part-Time Teachers.
Sir/Madam,
I am directed to say that the UGC has accepted the
recommendation of VI Pay Review Committee regarding
revised guidelines for the Scheme of Appointment/Honorarium
of Guest/Part Time Teachers.
The UGC has decided that the Guest/Part-time Teachers who
possess the minimum qualification for the post of an
Assistant Professor should be paid Rs.1,000/- per lecture to a
maximum of Rs.25,000/- per month. Revised guidelines for the
appointment of Guest/Part Time Teachers are as under:-
1. Guest/Part-time Teachers may be appointed only against
sanctioned post.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
2. The qualifications for Guest/Part time Teachers should be
same as those prescribed for the regular teachers of
Universities/Colleges in UGC's Regulation.
3. Selection procedure for appointing Guest/Part time Teachers
should be same as for a regular appointed teachers.
4. Guest/Part time Teachers may not be treated like regular
teachers of the faculty for the purpose of voting rights or for
becoming the members of the board of studies.
5. Retired teachers may also be considered for appointment
for Guest/Part time teachers.
6. Guest/Part time teachers may not be given the benefit of
allowances, pension, gratuity etc.
These guidelines will come into force w.e.f.1.1.2010.
The contents of the letter may be brought to the notice of all
the affiliated Colleges/Institutions.
Yours faithfully
(B.K. Singh)
Deputy Secretary"
19. Mr. Yagnik submitted that the directions issued by
the University Grants Commission are mandatory and the
Government is obliged to implement the recommendations.
He submitted that the State Government had been revising
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
the pay scales and the fixed salary structure for the part
time lecturers of the colleges at an interval of three years.
The last revision was in the year 2007. According to Mr.
Yagnik there is no good reason with the State Government
for not revising the pay scales/fixed salary structure for the
part time lecturers after a lapse of three years. He
submitted that the action could be termed as exploitation of
the part time lecturers by the State and therefore the same
is violative of the Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
20. Mr. Yagnik submitted that vide Resolution dated
11th November, 2009, the State of Gujarat decided to
implement the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay
Commission and revised the pay scales with retrospective
effect from 1st January, 2006 for the teachers of the
Government Colleges, Universities and for teachers affiliated
to the Universities. He submitted that in such
circumstances the part time college teachers are also
entitled to get the revision in the pay scale with effect
from 1st January, 2006 and on a pro rata basis according
to the University Grants Commission Notification of 1998.
21. He submitted that the State of Gujarat willingly
accepted the recommendations of the University Grants
Commission in the case of full time teachers teaching in
the Government Colleges, Universities and Colleges affiliated
to the respective Universities. According to him, there is no
rational as to why the State of Gujarat could not revise
the pay scale also for the part time teachers on the pro
rata basis with effect from 1st January, 2006.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
22. He submitted that the case of the petitioners merit
consideration and the reliefs as prayed for may be granted.
Submission on behalf of the State
23. Mr. Rohan Yagnik, the learned AGP appearing for
the State respondents vehemently opposed this petition and
submitted that no case for grant of any relief could be said
to have been made out by the petitioners. His principal
argument is that the directions or the instructions of the
University Grants Commission are not binding on the State
Government. He submitted that which part of the scheme
of the University Grants Commission should be accepted
and which part should not be within the discretion of the
State Government.
24. He submitted that the part time college lecturers
cannot be placed at par with the full time lecturers. He
submitted that the appointment of a lecturer on part time
basis is made as the work load is not adequate for the
post of full time lecturer. He submitted that a full time
lecturer takes around 18 lectures per week. As and when
there is a short fail in the full work load of the lecturers
and also shortage of a full time lecturer, the part time
lecturers are being appointed to take care of the situation.
He submitted that the State Government has been issuing
NOC to appoint the part time and full time lecturer upon
conditions prescribed by the State Government from time to
time. He also pointed out that in the appointment letters
itself there is a mention that the part time lecturer shall
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
not have any right of permanent absorption as a full time
teacher.
25. Mr. Yagnik submitted that a part time lecturer takes
around 3 to 10 lectures in a week. He also pointed out
that the basic work of the part time lecturer is to give
lectures in a particular college and for limited hours. They
are not shouldered with any responsibility of any
administrative work and are also not required to remain
present in the college except for delivery of the lectures. He
submitted that the full time lecturers also have to perform
academic and administrative work.
26. Mr. Yagnik pointed out that the part time lecturers
are assigned administrative work like examination
supervision, paper setting etc. and for that purpose the
university pays them by way of special remuneration.
27. He submitted that the allegations of discrimination
are baseless. He submitted that no parity can be claimed
by the part time lecturers with the full time college
teachers.
28. Mr. Yagnik clarified that the reliance placed by the
petitioners on the communication of the University Grants
Commission dated 5th February, 2010 is completely
misplaced. He submitted that the communication is not
applicable in the case of part time lecturers as the selection
procedure of a part time teacher or a guest is not the
same.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
29. Mr. Yagnik submitted that so far as the
implementation of the 6th Pay Commission in the case of
the full time teachers is concerned, it is the Central
Government which provides 80% grant against the salary of
the full time teachers whereas in the case of the part time
teachers, the State Government has to bear the expenses.
30. Mr. Yagnik lastly submitted that although the State
Government accepted the recommendations of the University
Grants Commission pursuant to the resolution dated 24th
December, 1998 yet it cannot be said that all the clauses
of the scheme become applicable once the State Government
accepts the scheme.
31. He submitted that there being no merit in the claim
of the petitioners, the writ petition may be rejected.
Submissions on behalf of the UGCW
32. Mr. Mitul Shelat, the learned advocate appearing for
the University Grants Commission submitted that the
Commission was constituted under the provisions of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (Act No.3 of 1956)
which came into force with effect from 5th November, 1956.
He submitted that the Act was enacted to make provisions
for the co-ordination and determination of standards in the
Universities. He submitted that the Commission has been
vested with the power to recommend to any university the
measures necessary for the improvement of university
education and advised the university upon the action to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
taken for the purpose of implementation of the said
recommendation.
33. Mr. Shelat has placed reliance on the averments
made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the
Commission. The averments made in the affidavit-in-reply
filed by the commission are as under:-
"[4] That the University Grants Commission
(hereinafter to be referred as "the Commission") has
been constituted under the provisions of the
university Grants Commission Act, 1956 (Act No.3 of
1956) which came into force w.e.f. 5.11.1956. The Act
was enacted to make provisions for the co-ordination
and determination of standards in universities. The
Commission under the provisions of the Act has been
entrusted with the duty to take such steps as it may
think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of
university education and for the determination and
maintenance of standards of teaching, examination
and research in universities. For the said purpose,
the Commission has been vested with the power to
recommend to any university the measures necessary
for the improvement of university education and
advice the universities upon the action to be taken
for the purpose of implementation of such
recommendation.
[5] That the Commission is also authorized to
perform such other functions as may be prescribed or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
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
it's functions. Section 26 of the Act which gives
power to the Commission to make regulations
consistent with the Act, permits the Commission to
define 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 the applicant is
expected to give instruction.
[6] That Section 2[f] of the University Grants
Commission Act defines the University, which
provides that:
"University means 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 recognized by the Commission in
accordance with the Regulations made this behalf
under this Act."
[7] That Section 3 deals with the notification of
deemed to be University providing that "The Central
Government may, on advice of the Commission,
declare by notification in the official Gazette, that
any institution for higher education, other than a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
University, shall be deemed to be a University for
the purposes of this Act, and on such a declaration
being made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply
to such institution as if it were a University within
the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2.
[8] That Section 12 of the University Grants
Commission Act provides that 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
coordination of University Education and for the
determination and maintenance of the standards of
teaching, examination and research in Universities. It
further provides that for the aforesaid purpose of
performing its functions under the Act, the
Commission is also authorized to 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
of higher education in India or as may be incidental
or conducive to the discharge of the above functions.
[9] That it is further submitted that for performing
its general duties and its other functions under the
University Grants Commission Act, the UGC is
invested with the power specified in various clauses
of Sections 12. These include the power to
recommend to a University the measures necessary
for the improvement of University Education and to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
advice in respect of the action to be taken for the
purpose of implementing such recommendation [clause
d]. The UGC is also invested with the powers to
perform such other functions as may be prescribed or
as may be deemed necessary by it for advancing the
cause of higher education in India or as may be
incidental or conducive to the discharge of such
functions [clause j]. It is respectfully submitted that
the aforesaid two clases i.e. clauses[d] & [j] of
Section 12 in itself are wide enough to empower the
UGC to frame the regulation. It is further submitted
that Section 26[l][g] of the Act confers specific and
sufficient power to the University Grants Commission
to frame regulation regulating the maintenance of
standards and the coordination of work or facilities
in Universities.
[10] That further section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956
deals with the power of Commission to make
regulations, among others, 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 instruction and regulating the
maintenance of standards and the coordination of
work or facilities in Universities.
[11] That it is further submitted that for performing
its general duties and its other functions under the
University Grants Commission Act, the UGC is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
invested with the power specified in various clauses
of Sections 12. These include the power to
recommend to a University the measures necessary
for the improvement of University Education and to
advice in respect of the action to be taken for the
purpose of implementing such recommendation [clause
d]. The UGC is also invested with the powers to
perform such other functions as may be prescribed or
as may be deemed necessary by it for advancing the
cause of higher education in India or as may be
incidental or conducive to the discharge of such
functions [clause j]. It is respectfully submitted that
the aforesaid two clauses i.e. clauses [d] &[j] of
Section 12 in itself are wide enough to empower the
UGC to frame the regulation. It is further submitted
that Section 26[l][g] of the Act confers specific and
sufficient power to the University Grants Commission
to frame regulation regulating the maintenance of
standards and the coordination of work or facilities
in Universities.
[12] That it is respectfully submitted that so far as
the post of guest faculty is concerned, the minimum
eligibility prescribed by UGC is the same. It is
submitted that a candidate seeking appointment to
the post of Lecturer either on regular basis or on
temporary basis must fulfill the eligibility criteria laid
down by the UGC. It is relevant to state that UGC
vide its Letter No. F.10-1/2009(PS) dated 06.02.2010
issued the revised guidelines for the scheme of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
appointment/honorarium of guest/part time teachers to
the following effects:-
"I am directed to say that the UGC has accepted the
recommendation of VI Pay Revision Committee
regarding revised guidelines for the scheme of
Appointment/Honorarium of Guest/part time Teachers.
The UGC has decided that the Guest/part-time
Teachers who possess the minimum qualification for
the post of an Assistant Professor should be paid
Rs.1,000/- per lecture to a maximum to Rs.25,000/-
per month. Revised guidelines for the appointment of
Guest/Part-time Teachers are as under:-
1. Guest/Part-time Teachers may be appointed only
against sanctioned post.
2. The qualification for Guest/Part-time Teachers
should be same as those prescribed for the regular
teachers of Universities/Colleges in UGC's Regulation.
3. Selection procedure for appointing Guest/Part-time
Teachers should be the same as for a regularly
appointed teachers.
4. Guest/Part-time Teachers may not be treated like
regular teachers of the faculty for the purpose of
voting rights or for becoming the members of the
boards of studies.
5. Retired teachers may also be considered for
appointment for Guest/Part-time teachers.
6. Guest/Part-time teachers may not be given the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
benefit of allowances, pension, gratuity etc.
These guidelines will come into force w.e.f. 1.1.2010
The contents of the letter may be brought to the
notice of all the affiliated colleges/institutions."
A true copy of the UGC letter No. F.10-1/2009(PS)
dated 06.02.2010 is being annexed as Annexure R-1.
[13] That it is relevant to state that subsequently, in
exercise of powers conferred under clause (e) and (g)
of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of University Grants
Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956), and in pursuance
of the MHRD O.M.No.F.23-7/2008-IFD dated 23rd
October, 2008, read with Ministry of Finance
(Department of Expenditure) O.M. No.F.1-1/2008-IC
dated 30th August, 2008, and in terms of the MHRD
Notification No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(1) issued on 31st
December, 2008 and in supersession of the University
Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications Required
for the Appointment and Career Advancement of
Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to
it) Regulations, 2000, issued by University Grants
Commission vide Regulation No. F.3-1/2000(PS) dated
4th April, 2000, together with all amendments made
therein from time to time, the University Grants
Commission framed 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010. The said
regulation came into force with immediate effect and
was published in the gazette of India on 18.09.2010.
[14] That it is submitted that the said regulation
applies 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 (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.
[15] That it is submitted that Regulation 2 provides
that the minimum qualification for appointment and
other service conditions of University and college
teachers, librarians and Directors of Physical
Education and Sports as a measure for the
maintenance of standards in higher education shall
be as provided in the Annexure to the Regulations.
[16] That it is submitted that Clause 1.0.0 of the
Annexure to the Regulation deals with coverage and
provides as under:-
"1.1.1. For teachers in the Faculties of Agriculture
and Veterinary Science, the norms/Regulations of
Indian Council of Agricultural Research; for Faculty
of Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing and AYUSH, the
norms/Regulations of Ministry of Health and Family
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
Welfare, Government of India; for Faculty of
Education, the norms/regulations formulated in
consultations with National Council of Teacher
Education; for Engineering and Technology, Pharmacy
and Management/Business Administration, the norms/
Regulations formulated in consultations with All India
Council for Technical Education; and the
qualifications in the field of rehabilitation and special
education at Degree, PG Diploma and Masters level,
the norms/Regulations formulated in consultations
with Rehabilitation Council of India, shall apply."
[17] That it is submitted that clause 13.0 of the
aforesaid UGC Regulation, 2010 provides the following
in respect of appointment on contract basis.
"13.0 APPOINTMENTS ON CONTRACT BASIS
13.1 The teachers should be appointed on contract
basis only when it is absolutely necessary and when
the student-teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid
down norms. In any case, the number of such
appointments should not exceed 10% of the total
number of faculty positions in a college/University.
The qualifications and selection procedure for
appointing them should be the same as those
applicable to a regularly appointed teacher. The fixed
emoluments paid to such contract teachers should not
be less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly
appointed Assistant Professor. Such appointments
should not be made initially for more than one
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
academic session, and the performance of any such
entrant teacher should be reviewed for academic
performance before reappointing her/him on contract
basis for another session."
34. Mr. Shelat, in view of the above, submitted that the
State has no discretion to accept the scheme in part and
refuse to implement the other part of the scheme.
35. Mr. Shelat also pointed out that all the members of
the Association are appointed as permanent part time
lecturers against the sanctioned post in accordance with law
after issue of advertisement, interview and selection by the
panel constituted according to the respective university's Act
and approved by the university to which the respective
college is affiliated. He also clarified that not a single
member of the association is visiting the faculty as a guest
lecturer or a lecturer on ad-hoc basis for a temporary
period. The selection procedure, qualifications and eligibility
for the full time and part time lecturers are the same.
36. Mr. Shelat therefore prays that the petition filed by
the Association merit consideration and reliefs prayed for
may be granted.
Analysis:-
37. Having heard the learned counsel appearing the
parties and having gone through the materials on record,
the only question that falls for my consideration is whether
the recommendations of the University Grants Commission
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
are binding to the State Government so far as the part
time teachers are concerned.
38. The UGC Act has been enacted to ensure that there
is co-ordination and determination of standards in
universities, which are institutions of higher learning, by a
body created by the Central Government. It is the duty
and responsibility of the University Grants Commission,
which is established by Section 4 of the UGC Act, to
determine and coordinate the standard of teaching
curriculum and also the level of examination in various
universities in the country. In order to achieve the
aforesaid objectives, the role of the UGC comes at the
threshold. The course of study, its nature and volume, has
to be ascertained and determined before the commencement
of the academic session. Proper standard of teaching cannot
be achieved unless there are adequate infrastructural
facilities in the campus like classrooms, libraries,
laboratories, well-equipped teaching staff of requisite calibre
and a proper student-teacher ratio. For this purpose, the
Central Government has made a number of rules in
exercise of powers conferred by Section 25 of the UGC Act
and the Commission has also made regulations in exercise
of power conferred by section 26 of the UGC Act and to
mention a few, the UGC Inspection of Universities Rules,
1960, the UGC Regulations, 1985 regarding the Minimum
Standards of Instructions for the Grant of the First Degree,
UGC Regulations, 1991 regarding the Minimum
Qualifications for the Appointment of Teachers in
Universities and Colleges, etc. UGC with the approval of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
the Central Government and exercising power under Section
22(3) of the UGC Act has issued a schedule of degrees
which may be awarded by the universities. (See: Prem
Chand Jain v. R.K. Chhabra and Osmania University
Teachers' Assn. V. State of A.P.)
39. It appears from the materials on record that the
State Government vide its Resolution dated 30th May, 2015
has given 20% rise in the salary of the part time lecturers
thereby the salary has been hiked as under:-
(1) From Rs.3900/- to Rs. 4680/-
(2) From Rs.7800/- to Rs.9360/-
(3) From Rs. 11700/- to Rs.14040/-
40. The above would suggest that the part time teachers
have been given rise of Rs.780/-, 1560/- and 2340/-
respectively.
41. It also appears from the materials on record that the
rise in the salary of the part time lecturers between 2003
and 2015 is that of Rs.10,000/- and during this interregnum
period two pay commissions have already been implemented
but the benefit of the same was not extended to the part
time lecturers. It also appears that the full time lecturers
have been given a rise of more then Rs. 50,000/- in last 10
years. A full time lecturer appointed along with the part
time teacher in 1998 is drawing the salary of not less then
Rs,1,10,000/- whereas the part time lecturer receives the
monthly salary of not more then Rs.14,000/-.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
42. Let me make myself very clear on one very
important aspect. Although a lot has been argued regarding
the difference between the full time lecturers and part time
lecturers, it appears that all the members of the
Association were appointed as permanent part time lecturers
against the sanctioned posts in accordance with law, which
included advertisement, interview and selection by the panel
constituted under the respective universities Act and
approved by the university to which the respective colleges
are affiliated. I should also clarify that not a single
member of the Association is visiting the faculty as a guest
lecturer or a lecturer on ad-hoc basis for a temporary
period. More importantly the selection process, qualifications
and eligibility for full time and part time lecturers are the
same.
43. I am saying so on the basis of the appointment
letters of some of the part time lecturers which are on
record and even otherwise the same is not disputed by the
other side.
44. The UGC itself made it clear that the guest part
time teachers should be appointed only against the
sanctioned post and there qualifications should also be same
as those prescribed for the regular teachers of the
university/colleges. The commission has also made it clear
that the selection procedure appointing the part time
teachers should also be the same as for a regularly
appointed teachers. The only thing which the Commission
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
has clarified is that the part time teachers may not be
treated like regular teachers of the faculty for the purpose
of voting rights or for becoming the members of the boards
of studies and they may not be given the benefit of
allowances, pension, gratuity etc.
45. However, in the 1998 Notification of the Commission
it has been made abundantly clear that the part time
lecturers should be appointed against selection/proportionate
salary and the scale should include proportionate
increments, dearness allowance and any other permissible
benefits. The Commission has also said in its notification
that such permanent part time teachers are also entitled to
the scheme of career from the lecturer to senior scale
lecturer, selection grade lecturer/reader, and Professor. The
Commission has clarified that they are entitled to
half/proportionate amount of the basic of the scale and
proportionate increments, dearness allowances and any other
permissible benefits.
46. The State Government has made its stance clear. In
its further affidavit dated 22nd October, 2013 it has been
stated that the scheme of the Commission has been partly
accepted so far as the full time teachers are concerned.
Thereby suggesting that the recommendations so far as the
part time teachers are concerned have not been accepted.
47. The discrimination in terms of salary is writ large on
the face of the record. As against the salary of 1,10,000/-
drawn by the full time lecturer, the part time lecturers
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
with the same qualifications and procedure of selection are
paid about Rs.14000/- per month. Each of the members of
the Association have put in by now about 20 years of
service. As stated above, according to the 6th Pay
Commission the full time lecturer appointed in 1998 in the
colleges at present draw Rs.85,000/- as a monthly salary
but a part time teacher appointed in 1998 with the same
qualifications and the eligibility draws less then Rs.13000/-
inclusive rise of Rs.300 per year. The difference is therefore
of Rs.72000/-. It is also true that the full time teachers in
the colleges conduct 18 lectures per week whereas the part
time teachers conduct 10 lectures. This is the reason why
the Commission has recommended that the part time
teachers are entitled to draw salary on the basis of the pro
rata rise in an ad valoram manner with the incidental and
supplemented service benefits.
48. However, the principle question still remains to be
answered whether the UGC regulations when it creates
financial obligations upon a State are binding in or
discretionary.
49. The regulations framed under the Act have a
statutory force by virtue of Section 28 of the Act. However,
the reading of the University Grants Commission Act does
not disclose that the regulations framed have a binding
force on the State Government. The provisions of Section 14
of the Act makes it very clear as to the consequences of
non-compliance of the recommendations of the Commission.
There is nothing for the provisions of the University Grants
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
Commission Act to make the recommendations of the
Commission mandatory and inviolable on the part of the
university and State Government to comply. It is no doubt
true that it is the UGC which alone can lay down the
qualifications/guidelines required by a person to be
appointed to the teaching staff of the university or
institution affiliated to it. No doubt, under entry 66 of list-I
of Schedule-VII to the Constitution of India it is the
Central Government which has the power to lay down the
standards of higher education. However, this does not give
power to the Central Government to lay down the pay
scales. The UGC has the power to lay down standards of
qualifications which should be held by the holder of any
post in the university but it cannot lay down the pay
scales. The recommendations which the UGC makes with
regard to the pay scales are only recommendatory in
nature. If the State Government accepts the
recommendations of the UGC, then they become binding but
it is for the State Government to consider whether to adopt
any particular recommendations of the UGC or not.
50. In the aforesaid context I may quote with profit a
three judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma V. State of Bihar and
others, 2013 (8) SCC 633. In the said case the Supreme
Court considered the question as regards the
regulations/scheme framed by the UGC and its effect on the
educational institutions run by a State under the State
enactments, including the State Universities. The Supreme
Court in that case was concerned with the scheme dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
31st December, 2008 framed by the UGC purporting to
enhance the pay of teachers and other connected staff in
the Central Universities/educational institutions, and also to
increase their age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years.
The State Governments were given the option to adopt the
said scheme in its composite form, whereto the UGC agreed
to bare 80% of the additional expenses incurred by the
State in disbursement of salary up to 31st March, 2010.
The Supreme Court took the view that the State
Government was at liberty to frame its own rules relating
to education in the state and was not bound to follow the
regulations framed by the UGC. However, the Supreme
Court said that where the state decides to adopt the
regulations framed by the UGC, it is bound to abide by the
stipulated conditions contained therein. It was further held,
that there can be no automatic application of the
regulations, scheme framed by the UGC in a State, without
any conscious decision having been taken by the State
Government in that regard on account of the financial
implications and other consequences attached thereto. The
Supreme Court finally concluded that where the State
Government takes a positive decision to adopt a UGC
scheme/regulations, the consequences envisaged in the
regulations (Scheme) would automatically follow.
51. I may quote the observations made by the Supreme
Court in paragraphs Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77,
78 and 79:-
"69. To some extent there is an air of redundancy in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
the prayers made on behalf of the respondents in the
submissions made regarding the applicability of the
Scheme to the State and its universities, colleges and
other educational institutions. The elaborate
arguments advanced in regard to the powers of UGC
to frame such regulations and/or to direct the
increase in the age of teachers from 62 to 65 years
as a condition precedent for receiving aid from UGC,
appears to have little relevance to the actual issue
involved in these cases. That the Commission is
empoweredto frame regulations under Section 26 of
the UGC Act, 1956, for the promotion and
coordination of university education and for the
determination and maintenance of standards of
teaching, examination and research, cannot be denied.
The question that assumes importance is whether in
the process of framing such regulations, the
Commission could alter the service conditions of the
employees which were entirely under the control of
the States in regard to State institutions?
70. The authority of the Commission to frame
regulations with regard to the service conditions of
teachers in the Centrally-founded educational
institutions is equally well-established. As has been
very rightly done in the instance case, the acceptance
of the Scheme in its composite form has been left to
the discretion of the State Governments. The concern
of the State Governments and their authorities that
UGC has no authority to impose any conditions with
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
regard to its educational institution is clearly
unfounded. There is no doubt that the Regulations
framed by UGC related to Schedule VII List I Entry
66 to the Constitution, but it does not empower the
Commission to alter any of the terms and contions of
the enactments by the State under Article 309 of the
Constitution. Under List III Entry 25, the State is
entitled to enact its own laws with regard to the
service conditions of the teachers and other staff of
the universities and colleges within the State and the
same will have effect unless they are repugnant to
any Central legislation.
71. However, in the instant case, the said questions
do not arise, inasmuch as, as mentioned hereinabove,
the acceptance of the scheme in its composite form
was made discretionary and, therefore, there was no
compulsion on the State and its authorities to adopt
the scheme. The problem lies in the desire of the
State and its authorities to obtain the benefit of 80%
of the salaries of the teachers and other staff under
the scheme, without increasing the age of retirement
from 62 to 65 years, or the subsequent condition
regarding the taking over of the Scheme with its
financial implications from 1-04-2010.
72. As far as the States of Kerla and U.P. are
concerned, they have their own problems which are
localised and stand on a different footing from the
other States, none of whom who appear to have the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
same problem. Education now being a List III
subject, the State Government is at liberty to frame
its own laws relating to education in the State and
is not, therefore, bound to accept or follow the
Regulations framed by UGC. It is only natural that
if they wish to adopt the Regulations framed by the
Commission under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956,
the States will have to abide by the conditions as
laid down by the Commission.
73. That leaves us with the question which is special
to the State of Bihar i.e. the effect of Section 67(a)
introduced into the Bihar State Universities Act,
1976, by the Bihar State Universities (Amendment)
Act, 1976. Section 67(a) has been extracted
hereinbefore in para 14. while, on the one hand, it
has been mentioned that notwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained in any Act, rules, statutes,
regulation or ordinance, the date of retirement of a
teaching employee of the university or of a college
shall be the date on which he attains the age of 62
years, the confusion is created by the next sentence
which further provides that the date of retirement of
a teaching employee would be the same which would
be decided by UGC. It has been urged that the said
provision clearly contemplates that in the event of an
alteration resulting in an upward revision of the age
of superannuation, the same would automatically
apply to all such teachers and staff, without any
further decision of the State and its authorities in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
that regard. In other words, what has been sought to
be urged is that when in regard to Centrally-founded
universities, colleges and educational institutions, the
age of superannuation has been increased to 65 years
by the University Grants Commission, the same has
to uniformly apply to all universities and colleges
throughout the country, without any discrimination.
The same did not necessitate any separate decision to
be taken by the State and its authorities regarding
the applicability of the decision taken by the
University Grants Commission.
74. The said submission, in our view, is not
acceptable on account of the fact that in the first
paragraph of Section 67(a) it has been categorically
stated that the age of superannuation would be 62
years. The Second paragraph of the said section
makes it even more clearer, since it reiterates that
the date of retirement of non-teaching employees,
other than the inferior servants, shall be the date on
which he attains the age of 62 years. The first
proviso also indicates that the university shall, in no
case, extend the period of service of any of the
teaching or non-teaching employee after he attains
the age of 62 years. The second proviso, however,
States that even after retirement, teachers may be
laid down in the Statutes made in this behalf in
accordance with the guidelines of the Commission.
75. As against the above, certain writ petitions have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
been filed in the Patna High Court which rejected
the contention of the petitioners and dismissed the
writ petitions on the ground that the Commission
had not taken any conscious decision with regard to
teachers and staff, except for those which were
Centrally-founded. Subsequently, however, since in its
452nd Meeting the Commission took a conscious
decision and recommended that the report of the Pay
Review Committee recommending the enhancement of
age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years be made
applicable throughout the country, fresh writ petitions
were filed in the Patna High Court, including CWJC
No.2330 of 2009, filed by the appellants herein. The
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions upon
holding that once the Commission had recommended
that the age of superannuation be accepted as 65
years, the State Governments had no discretion but
to enhance the age of superannuation in line with
the recommendations made by the Commission. The
Division Bench subsequently reversed the finding of
the learned Single Judge, resulting in these special
leave petitions (now appeals).
76. The learned Standing Counsel for the State of
Bihar, Mr. Gopal Singh, had in his submissions
reiterated the views of the High Court i.e. that on
mere communication, the revision of the pay of
teachers and increase in the age of superannuation
would not automatically become effective and that, in
any event, the right to alter the terms and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
conditions of service of the (sic employees of the)
State universities and colleges were within the
domain of the State Government and till such time
as it decided to adopt the same, the same would
have no application to the teachers and staff of the
different educational institutions in the State.
77. We are inclined to agree with such submission
mainly because of the fact that in the amended
provisions of non-teaching employees would be 62
years and, in no case, should the period of service of
such no-teaching employees be extended beyond 62
years. A difference had been made in regard to the
teaching faculty whose services could be extended up
to 65 years in the manner laid down in the
University Statutes. There is no ambiguity that the
final decision to enhance the age of superannuation
of teachers within a particular State would be that
of the State itself. The right of the Commission to
frame regulations having the force of law is admitted.
However, the State Governments are also entitled to
legislate with matters relating to education under
List III Entry 25. So long as the State legislation
did not encroach upon the jurisdiction of Parliament,
the State legislation would obviously have primacy
over any other law. If there was any legislation
enacted by the Central Government under List III
Entry 25, both would have to be treated on a par
with each other. In the absence of any such
legislation by the Central Government under List III
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
Entry 25, the regulations framed by way of delegated
legislation have to yield to the plenary jurisdiction of
the State Government under List III Entry 25.
78. We are then faced with the situation where a
composite scheme has been framed by UGC, whereby
the Commission agreed to bear 80% of the expenses
incurred by the State if such scheme was to be
accepted, subject to the condition that the remaining
20% of the expense would be met by the State and
that on and from 1-4-2010, the State Government
would take over the entire burden and would also
have enhanced the age of superannuation of teachers
and other staff from 62 to 65 years. There being no
compulsion to accept and/or adopt the said Scheme,
the State are free to decide as to whether the
Scheme would be adopted by them or not. In our
view, there can be no automatic application of the
recommendations made by the Commission, without
any conscious decision being taken by the State in
this regard, on account of the financial implications
and other consequences attached to such a decision.
The case of those petitioners who have claimed that
they should be given the benefit of the Scheme
dehors the responsibility attached thereto, must,
therefore, fail.
79. However, within this class of institutions there is
a separate group where the State Governments
themselves have taken a decision to adopt the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
Scheme. In such cases, the consequences envisaged in
the Scheme itself would automatically follow."
52. Thus, from the above it could be said that when the
UGC regulations imposes any financial obligation upon a
State by way of recommendation the same may not be
binding to the State Government like recommendations on
academic matters and issues. At the same time when the
State Government decides to accept the scheme as a whole
for the full time teachers then the decision of the State
Government not to give effect to the recommendation of the
Commission to pay the part time teachers on the basis of
pro rata basis i.e. half/proportionate amount of the basic of
the scale and proportionate increment, dearness allowances
and any other permissible benefits the same would render
the action of the State Government vulnerable to the
complaint that the same is unconstitutional.
53. At this stage I may also quote the decision relied
upon by the State Government in the case of B. Bharat
Kumar and others v. Osmania University and others, 2007
(11) SCC 58 more particularly paragraph No.18 which reads
as under:-
"18. For the Similar reasons we do not see as to
why the judgment in T.P. George is not applicable to
the present case. A very serious argument was raised
by the learned counsel that the judgment stood
overruled by Yashpal case. We do not think so.
Yashpal case was on entirely different issue. There
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
the controversy was relating to a legislation creating
number of universities. The question there was as to
whether the State Government could create so many
universities and whether the legislation creating
number of universities. The question there was
relating to a legislation creating number of
universities. The question there was as to whether
the State Government could create so many
universities and whether the legislation creating such
universities was a valid legislation, particularly in
view of the fact that the subject of higher education
was covered under Entry 66 of List I. Such is not
the subject in the present case. Here is a case where
there is no legislation. Even if we take the scheme
to the higher pedestal of policy statement under
Article 73 of the Constitution, the scheme itself
suggests to be voluntary and not binding and the
scheme itself gives a discretion to the State
Government to accept it or not to accept it. If such
is the case, we do not see the relevance of Yashpal
in the present matter. Once this argument fails, the
reference to the other cases which we have referred
to earlier also becomes unnecessary. In our considered
opinion all those cases relate to the legislative
powers on the subject of education on the part of the
State Government and the Central Government. In
the present case we do not have any such legislation
for being considered. Where the scheme itself gives
the discretion to the State Government and where
the State Government uses that discretion to accept
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
a part of the scheme and not the whole thereof, it
would be perfectly within the powers of the State
Government not to accept the suggestion made by
the scheme to increase the age of superannuation."
54. Mr. Anand Yagnik has placed reliance on a decision
of the Madras High Court in the case of R. Suresh v.
Secretary, writ-petition No.4468/2012 decided on 22nd
August, 2012 wherein almost the same issue was
considered. In that case also the petitioner was appointed,
as a guest lecturer in the law college at Madurai. He was
being paid Rs.100/-per hour with the maximum of Rs.4000/-
per month, which was increased to Rs.500/- per hour with
the maximum of Rs.10,000/- per month. He preferred a
representation for grant of honorarium of Rs.1000/- with a
maximum amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. As the
representation was not considered he preferred a writ-
application with a prayer for issue of a writ, in the nature
of mandamus. A learned Single Judge of the Madras High
Court observed as under:-
"8. It is not disputed, that the petitioner fulfills the
qualification. It is also not disputed in the counter, that
the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission
are binding on the University, Law College as also the
Government. The only defense raised is, that the post
against which the petitioner is working, is not the
sanctioned post. The stand of the respondents in the
counter reads as under:-
"6. It is further submitted that in letter No. F.10-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
1/2009(PS), dated February, 2010, it was informed
that the University Grants Commission had decided
that the Guest Lecturers who possess the minimum
qualifications for the post of an Assistant Professor
should be paid Rs.1000/-per lecture to a maximum of
Rs.25,000/-per month. In the said letter, the revised
guidelines for the appointment of Guest Lecturers
have been issued by the University Grants
Commission as furnished hereunder:-
1)Guest Lecturers may be appointed only against
sanctioned post.
2) The qualifications for the Guest Lecturers should
be the same as those prescribed for the regular
teachers of Universities/Colleges in UGC/s
Regulations.
3) Selection procedure for appointing Guest Lecturers
should be the same as for a regularly appointed
teacher.
7. It is further submitted that in the Department of
Legal Studies, there is no sanctioned post of Guest
Lecturer and Guest Lecturers are not appointed
against the sanctioned post. In the Department of
Legal Studies, no appointment orders are issued to
the Guest Lecturers who are utilized in the
Government Law Colleges and their services are
utilized on hourly basis and purely as an ad-hoc
arrangement till regular teachers are appointed
through the Teachers Recruitment Board.
It is further submitted that the qualifications insisted
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
for the Guest Lecturers of the Government Law
Colleges are not the same as those prescribed for the
regular teachers who are selected and appointed
through the Teachers Recruitment Board and the
selection procedure for the selecting the Guest
Lecturers is not the same as that of the regularly
appointed teachers. Hence, the petitioner herein is
not justified in seeking enhancement of the
remuneration paid to him as per letter No.F.10-
1/2009(PS), dated February, 2010 of the University
Grants Commission."
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contends, that once it is not disputed, that the
guidelines issued by the University Grants
Commission is binding on the University, there is no
justification with the respondents, to refuse the grant
of Honourarium at Rs.1000/-(Rupees one Thousand
Only) per lecture with a maximum of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) per month. It
is contended, that the defense of the respondent in
denying the claim as per the guidelines, is totally
arbitrary, thus, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.
10. The learned Additional Government Pleader
opposed the writ petition on the ground, that though
the guidelines is binding on the University, and the
Government, but it will apply only to the sanctioned
post, and that the post held by the petitioner is not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
the sanctioned post, therefore the petitioner is not
entitled to invoke the UGC guidelines to claim the
Honourarim at Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only)
per lecture with a maximum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand Only) per months.
11. On consideration, I find, that the defense raised
by the respondents cannot be accepted.
12. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as Guest
Lecturer in the University. It is for the University,
and the Government to see whether the post is
sanctioned or not. The person, who performs a duty
on a post, cannot be denied the Honorarium attached
to the post by artificial classification. Once it is not
disputed, that the guidelines issued by the University
Grants Commission are binding on the University,
and the Government, then the recommendations have
to be implemented for grant of Honorarium to guest
lecturers, who are performing the duties irrespective
of fact whether it is sanctioned post or not as
persons performing similar duties cannot be
discriminated merely for want of post being
sanctioned.
13. It is for the respondents to decide whether the
appointment is as guest lecturer against sanctioned
post. It is not open to the respondents, to deny the
Honorarium attached to the post, when once the
petitioner is allowed to work as guest lecturer.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right, in
contending, that the action of the respondents, in
denying the benefits under the U.G.C.
Recommendations is arbitrary, thus hit by Article 14
of the Constitution of India.
15. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. A
writ, in the nature of Mandamus, is issued directing
the respondents to implement the UGC guideline
No.F.10-1/2009(PS) dated February 2010 and to refix
the Honourarium paid for the Guest Lectures
delivered by the petitioner at Rs.1000/-(Rupees One
Thousand Only) per hour subject to the maximum of
Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) per
months."
55. Mr. Yagnik has also placed reliance on a decision of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Dr.
Puspendra and other v. BPS Mahila Vidyalaya and others
(Writ petition NO.2372 of 2011) decided on 4th October,
2013.
56. The learned Single Judge of the High Court was
confronted with almost an identical issue. In that case also
the petitioners were appointed as the guest lecturer in
different degrees subjects in a college. The petitioners
prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus to grant
scales to the guest lecturer as prescribed the UGC vide the
revised guidelines issued by the UGC on 5th February,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
2010 whereby the UGC decided that guests/part time
lecturers took possession the minimum qualification for the
post of Assistant Professor should be paid Rs.1000/- per
lecture to maximum of Rs.25,000/- per month. The college
declined the request for revision of salary of the guests
faculty on the premise that the same could be sanctioned
only after the receipt of orders from the State Government.
"The short question which is required to be
determined in the present case is whether the
petitioners who were appointed as Guest Lecturers
under respondent No.1 University, an autonomous
statutory body Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest
to the accuracy and integrity of this document High
constituted under Section 26 of the UGC Act, is not
bound to accept the command of the UGC to grant
pay of Rs.1000/-per lecture to the petitioners to a
maximum of Rs.25,000/-per month as per the
guidelines for the Guest/Part Time Teachers vide
annexure P-5(Annexure R-2/3). The UGC has been
constituted under the provisions of UGC Act, 1956
(Act No.3 of 1956). The Actwas enacted to make
provisions for the coordination and determination of
standards in Universities. The Commission under the
provisions of the UGC Act has been entrusted with
the duty to take such steps as it may think fit for
the promotion and coordination of university
education and for the determination and maintenance
of standards of teaching, examination and research in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
universities. For the said purose, the Commission has
been vested with the power to recommend to any
university the measures necessary for the
improvement of university education and advice the
universities upon the action to be taken for the
purpose of implementation of such recommendations
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 it's functions. Section
26 of the UGC Act (Act No.3 of 1956) gives power to
the Commission to make regulations consistent with
the Act. It permits the Commission to define 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 the applicant is expected to give
instructions. As per Section 2(f) University Grants
Commission Act, Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I
atteste to the accuracy and integrity of this document
"University" means a University established or
incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincials
Act or a State Act. The above said provision implies
that a University constituted under a statute requires
to be recognized by the UGC in accordance with the
regulations, Section 3 of the UGC Act ENABLES
THE Central Government, on the advice of the
Commission to declare, by notification in the Official
Gazette, that any institution for higher education,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
other than a University, shall be deemed to be a
University for the purpose of this Act, andon such a
declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act
shall apply to such institution as if it were a
University within the meaning of clause 2 (f) of the
UGC Act. As the standard of teaching, examination,
research etc. are to be maintained, section 12 of the
Act provides that, it shall be the concerned, all such
steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-
ordination of Universituy education and for the
determination and maintenance of standards of
teaching, examination and research in Universities.
The commission is also authrorized to 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. Under the Act, UGC is invested with
powers specified Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I
attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh CWP No.2372 of 2011[13] in
various classes of Section 12. These include power to
recommend to a University the measures necessary
for the improvement of the University Educaion and
to advice in respect of action to be taken for the
performances of implementing such recommendations.
The UGC is also invested with powers to perform
such other functions as may be prescribed or as may
be deemed necessary by it for advancing the cause of
higher education in India or as may be incidental or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
conducive to the discharge of such functions. A
reference can be made to clauses (d) and (j) of
Section 12 of the Act which are as under:-`
"12(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
recommendable;
12(j) 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."
The above said clauses are wide enough to empower
UGC to frame the regulations. Section 26 (1) (g) of
the Act confers specific and sufficient power under
the UGC to frame regulations regulating the CWP
No. 2372 of 2011 [14] maintenance of standards and
coordination of work and facilities in the Universities.
The UGC, in the exercise of the powers vested in it
had been framing regulations from time to time. For
instance, University Grants Commission (Minimum
qualifications required for the appointment and
Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and
institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 was
made in March 2000 which was subsequently
amended vide Regulations of 2002. It is also not
disputed that the UGC Regulations of 2010, which
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
has been referred to hereinbefore, provided the
appointment of teachers on contract basis when it is
absolutely necessary when the student teacher ratio
does not satisfy the laid down norms but it was
limited to the extent of 10% of the total number of
faculty posts in the College/ University. So far as the
qualification and selection procedure for appointment
of Faculty member on contract basis is concerned, the
qualifications and selection procedure has been held
to be the same as applicable to the regular appointed
lecturers. It is open to the college/ University to pay
fixed emoluments to the teachers but to safeguard
the interest of the teachers and the taught, it has
been provided that the emoluments to contract
teachers should not be less than monthly gross salary
of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor and that
such appointment should not be made initially for
more than one academic session and performance of
any such entrant teacher should be reviewed for
academic performance before reappoint him/ her on
contract basis for another session. Since 1956 Act is
traceable to Entry 66, List I, VII CWP No. 2372 of
2011 [15] Schedule of the Constitution of India, the
Regulations framed by the UGC regarding the
minimum qualification for appointment of Lecturer is
binding on the State Government and the concerned
University. The well merited role and authority of
UGC has been accepted and considered by the Apex
Court in few judgments. Reference can be made to
University of Delhi Vs. Raj Singh, 1994 (Suppl.) 3
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
SLR 217, and Bharathidasan University and another
Vs. All India Council of Technical Education and
others, AIR 2001 SC 2861 observing that UGC has
well merited role of primacy to play in shaping as
well as stepping up a coordinated development and
improvement in the standards of education and
research in the sphere of education. The said
judgments referred to the role and duty of the
Commission for determination and maintenance of the
standards of teaching. The authority and duty of
UGC to maintain good standard of education have
been recognized in Association of Management of
Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical
Education and others, 2013 (6) JT 277, though in
different context, in juxtaposition with the role of All
India Council for Technical Education under the All
India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and
the role of AICTE has been held to be advisory and
recommendatory and the role has been held to
subserve the cause of maintaining appropriate
standards and qualitative norms subject to the
authority of UGC for appropriate action.
So far as the letters annexure P-5 (annexure R-2/3)
issued by UGC is concerned, it was admittedly
circulated by the UGC. Any CWP No. 2372 of 2011
[16] notification, regulation or Rules of UGC have got
binding force for the purpose of appointment and
qualifications to the post of Lecturers. As per the
reply filed on behalf of UGC, the assessment of merit
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
and suitability of a candidate for appointment to any
post of teacher, is within the domain of the
concerned Selection Committee. The consequences of
failure of the University to comply with the
recommendations of the Commission are enumerated
in Section 14 of the UGC Act which reads as
follows:-
"If any University grants affiliation in respect of any
course of study to any college referred to in
subsection (5) of section 12-A 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 (f) or clause (g) of sub- section (2) of
section 25, or of any regulation made under clause
(e) or clause (f) or clause (g) of section 26, the
Commission, after taking into consideration the cause,
if any, shown by the University or such failure or
contravention, may withhold from the University the
grants proposed to be made out of the Fund of the
Commission."
Subsequently UGC framed the University Grants
Commission (Minimum qualifications for Appointment
of Teachers and other Academic CWP No. 2372 of
2011 [17] Staff in Universities and Colleges and
other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in
Higher Education) Regulations, 2010. Clause 3 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
said regulations provides the consequences of failure
of Universities to comply with the recommendations
of the Commission as per provisions of Section 14 of
the UGC Act which has been reproduced hereinabove.
Letter No. F.10-1/2009(PS) dated February 6, 2010,
annexure R-2/3 provides that Guest/ Part Time
Teachers possessing minimum qualifications for the
post of Assistant Professor should be paid Rs.1000/-
per lecture to a maximum of Rs.25000/- per month.
The above said emoluments are accompanied by
certain revised guidelines which have come into
operation w.e.f. January 1, 2010. UGC claims that
the said circular though is not part of UGC
Regulations but the Universities are required and
expected to give effect to the above said circular
regarding the appointment of Guest/ Part Time
Teachers in the Universities and Colleges. It has
been reiterated by UGC that if University
contravenes the condition as contained in the circular
dated February 6, 2010, the Commission may take
action against such University in accordance with the
provisions of Section 14 of the Act. The circular
dated February 6, 2010 is in consonance with the
objectives of UGC Act and UGC Regulations 2010
and the same being consistent with the statute,
standard provisions and the fundamental right under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, would be
deemed to be a law and will be considered to be a
law if seen in context to Article 13 (3) (a) of the
Constitution of India. It is not denied by respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
No.1 University that it CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [18]
has been constituted and has got the recommendation
of the University Grants Commission. The circular
annexure P-5 (annexure R-2/3) has got a statutory
force and is required to be implemented by
respondent No.1 University in order to escape any
action under Section 14 of the UGC Act.
I have considered the contention of learned counsel
for the State that the petitioners having accepted
lesser emoluments will be estopped to claim the
higher emoluments but I do not find any force in the
same as the recognition of respondent No.1
University binds it to follow the regulations made by
UGC. In case of failure of the University to comply
with any of the recommendations of the Commission,
the Commission can with-hold the grant proposed to
be made out of the funds of the Commission. As the
University has approved the appointment of the
petitioners as Guest Faculty pursuant to the
advertisement annexure R-1/1, it is not permissible
for the University to pay the emoluments which are
not recommended by the UGC. The advertisement
annexure R/1/1 dated June 17, 2010 issued in Dainik
Bhaskar newspaper shows that the incumbents
interested to be appointed as Guest Lecturers in
different subjects having qualifications as per UGC
norms were invited to give an impression that the
UGC norms regarding qualifications, eligibility and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
emoluments were known to the employer and an
employee.
Since the University is a statutory authority
functioning under the supervision of the Commission
constituted under a statute i.e. UGC Act and is
governed by the Regulations and bound to follow the
CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [19] recommendations and
regulations to save itself from the penal action under
Section 14 of the UGC Act, it will be presumed that
appointment of the petitioners as Guest Faculty
Lecturers is an act performed under the Statute and
should be presumed to be governed by the provisions
of law and is expected to be reasonable. There are
certain presumptions which are inferences or
propositions which derive their force or artificial
effect from the law and must be drawn when an act
is done by a statutory body bound by the strict rules
and regulations, the act done will be considered a
legal act in accordance with the Rules and
regulations and would have the effect of estopping
the statutory authority to deny its liability which is
required to fulfill the legal obligation. There cannot
be an estoppel against an act of Legislature. The
appointment of faculty of Part Time Lecturers is
permissible under the Rules of UGC subject to
certain conditions. When a selection is made by an
institution it will be presumed that all the necessary
conditions and requirements stand fulfilled. The stand
of the respondent University that as the petitioners
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
had agreed to receive lesser emoluments for a work
done they are estopped to challenge the same, is
baseless. It is the statutory obligation of University
to pay Rs.1000/- per lecture to Guest Lecturers. An
agreement to work for meager money would be
unconscionable under Section 23 of the Contract Act
and will not prevent the lecturers to enforce their
legal rights.
The regulations of the UGC are binding on
respondent No.1 University. Appointment made on the
basis of the advertisement annexure CWP No. 2372
of 2011 [20] R-1/1 will be deemed to be a selection
pursuant to advertisement on the basis of the
qualifications laid down by UGC norms. The
petitioners cannot be deprived of their right to be
paid Rs.1000 per lecture to a maximum of Rs.25000/-
per month. After availing the services of the
petitioners, they cannot be deprived of the
emoluments which they are legally entitled to.
Without expression of any opinion on the eligibility,
capability and merits of the petitioners it is sufficient
to observe that having performed the duties of Guest/
Part Time teachers in a College run under University
under the recommendations of the UGC, the
petitioners cannot be deprived of the financial
benefits which is sine qua non for maintaining
standards of teaching of the teachers and the
taughts.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The
order annexure P-7 prescribing Rs.300/- per hour
subject to maximum of Rs.15000/- qua the petitioners
is declared to be illegal, unreasonable and
discriminatory. A direction is issued to the
respondents to grant the petitioners remuneration at
the rate of Rs.1000/- per lecture subject to a
maximum of Rs.25000/- per month w.e.f. the date of
their appointment without prejudice to other legal
rights of the petitioners or the respondents. The
petitioners will be paid the arrears within a period of
three months by respondent No.1 University with
liberty to claim the additional burden from any of
the State authorities liable to provide financial
assistance/ grant."
57. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by
the two High courts referred to above.
58. The matter could be looked at from a different angle.
I have already discussed about the disparity in the salary
between the two classes of the employees. An appropriate
salary to a part time lecturer will ensure that such part
time lecturer would work sincerely and dedicatedly. If a
part time lecturer works with heart burning having regard
to the enormous disparity in the pay scale it will have a
direct effect on his performance i.e. quality of the teaching.
Therefore, what has been recommended by the UGC for the
part time lecturers although may not be binding to the
Government but still is very much essential for maintaining
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
the standards of teaching of the teachers and the taughts.
59. The common ground urged as regards the financial
implications also does not merit consideration. It was
sought to be argued before me on behalf of the State
Government that this Court should consider the matter
from different angles applying the practical experience and
factual contexts before arriving at any decision. To put in
other words, the State Government wants the Court to take
a pragmatic approach in this type of matters. I am unable
to record my concurrence there too. Pragmatic does not
necessarily be deprivation of the legitimate claims of the
weaker sections of the society. The submissions, if I may
say with respect, is totally misplaced and does not warrant
any further discussion thereon.
60. I may also quote with profit the observations made
by the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges'
Association v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 2493.
"The contention with regard to the financial burden
likely to be imposed by the directions in question is
equally misconceived. Firstly, the Courts do from time
to time hand down decisions which have financial
implications and the Government is obliged to loosen
its purse recurrently pursuant to such decisions.
Secondly, when the duties are obligatory, no
grievance can be heard that they cast financial
burden. Thirdly, compared to the other plan and non-
plan expenditure, we find that the financial burden
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
caused on account of the said directions is negligible.
We should have thought that such plea was not
raised to resist the discharge of the mandatory
duties. The contention that the resources of all the
States are not uniform has also to be rejected for
the same reasons. The directions prescribe, the
minimum necessary service conditions and facilities
for the proper administration of justice. We believe
that the quality of justice administered and the
calibre of the persons appointed to administer it are
not of different grades in different States. Such
contentions are ill-suited to the issues involved in the
present case."
61. The last question I need to consider is as regards
the final relief.
62. The Regulations specifically provides that in case of
Permanent Part Time Teachers they would be entitled to
half/proportionate amount of the basis of the scale and
proportionate increments, dearness allowance and any other
permissible benefits. In the same regulation as an annexure
there is a specific letter addressed by the University Grants
Commission which reads as under:-
"No.F-2-9/97(PS) Date: 17 April,)1999
The Registrar
Sub: Revision of honorarium to be paid to Guest/Part Time
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
Teacher in the Universities and College-regarding.
Sir/Madam,
In continuation to the UGC Circular No. F.15-7/88 (CPP)
dated 14.03.1998 on the above subject. I am to inform you
that the Commission decided that the honorarium may be
paid @ Rs.150/- per lecture to the Guest/Teacher in the
Universities and Colleges instead of payment of honorarium
per month. However, it is clarified that this will not apply
to part-time teachers who are appointed on terms &
conditions as provided for in the para 12.0.0 of the
Notification issued by University Grants Commission on 24 th
December, 1998."
63. It appears that in the then existing system there
were three kinds of appointment being made:-
(1) Permanent Full Time appointment
(2) Permanent Part Time Appointment
(3) Guest Lecturers/Teachers
64. It is evident that the there is a difference between
the permanent Part Time Teachers governed under the
Clause 12 and are entitled to payment of salary pro-rata to
that of Full Time Teacher whereas in the case of the later
they are to be paid honorarium of Rs.150/lecture.
65. It appears that thereafter the UGC issued another
circular dated 21/03/2000 in continuation of the earlier
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
circular and conveyed that that it was not in favour of a
separate cadre of the part-time teachers and that the
Commission had decided that no new part-time teachers be
appointed and wherever required a Guest Faculty could be
appointed on per lecture basis. It was further informed that
the Commission had decided to enhance the amount of
honorarim from Rs.150/- per lecture for the Guest Teachers.
By another communication this amount was further
enhanced to Rs.250 per lecture with a ceiling of Rs.3000
per month. By a subsequent communication dated
05/08/2001 it was provided that in respect of the Guest
Lecturers the ceiling should be Rs.5000/month.
66. It appears that the VI pay review committee
considered the revision of the existing honorarium of the
Guest Teachers and recommended the revision of the scales.
In terms thereof the UGC issued revised guidelines for the
scheme of appointment of Guest/Part Time teachers by
which it directed that they be paid Rs.1000/lecture to a
maximum of Rs.25,000 per month. Subsequently the UGC
framed 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 with effect from 18.09.2010. In
the affidavit filed by it the UGC has referred to Clause
13.0 thereof which provides for the appointment on contract
basis and prescribes that the fixed salary of contract
teachers should not be less that the monthly gross salary
of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
67. The State Government has stated in its affidavit
dated 7th February 2013 filed by the Joint Director that
the petitioners were selected and appointed through the
selection process for the post of Part Time Lecturer as per
the scheme laid down by the University Grants
Commission. It is further stated that pursuant to the
decision of the UGC not to appoint any new Part Time
Lecturers, the system of giving appointment as part time
lecturer is done away with. It is the case of the Petitioners
as well as the State Government that after 1998 no
appointments have been made as the Part Time Lecturers
and all petitioners were appointed in or before 1998. The
State Government has not been able to dispute the specific
contention regarding the similar kind of work being
undertaken by the part time lecturers. It has been
submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to get their
part time posts converted to full time posts. Reliance has
been placed on the government resolutions whereunder the
benefit of weightage was given to the part time lecturers in
the process of recruitment of Adhyapak Sahayak.
68. The petitioners have not prayed for their posts to be
converted from part time to full time. Their grievance is
against the payscale being offered to them which is not in
commensurate with the payscale being offered to the Full
Time Lecturers. They have prayed that their payscale be
proportionate to that of the full time teachers taking into
consideration the number of lecturers undertaken by them
in accordance with the regulations of the UGC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
69. Upon a comprehensive reading of the regulations
framed by the UGC from time to time, this court finds
that upto 21/03/2000 the UGC had recognized the cadre of
Permanent Part Time Teachers and provided that they
would be entitled to half/proportionate amount on the basis
of the scale and proportionate increments, dearness
allowance and any other permissible benefits. Once the
state government admits that the appointment to the post
of the Part Time Lecturers has been made in accordance
with the scheme framed by the UGC from time to time,
those persons who have been appointed as the Part Time
Lecturers prior to 21/03/2000 would therefore be entitled to
the payscale as provide in clause 12.00 of the notification
dated 24/12/1998. The contention on behalf of the
Respondent that subsequently the UGC has provided for a
honorarium with a ceiling limit from time to time and that
in terms thereof the petitioners may claim the benefit of
proportionate scale cannot be accepted. The honorarium
provided by the UGC was for a separate cadre of
appointments namely Guest Lecturer. The UGC letter
unequivocally states that revision in honorarium will not
apply to the class of permanent part time teachers who
would continue to be governed by clause 12. Consequently
the question of applying future revisions in honorarium to
the class of permanent part time teacher would not arise.
It may also be noticed that the existing pay paid to the
permanent part time lecturers in accordance with the
Government Resolution dated 17/01/2012 is not in
consonance with the minimum honorarium prescribed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
UGC. The Government Resolution dated 17/01/2012 is
therefore not in consonance with the Regulations framed by
the UGC from time to time. The Government having
accepted the Regulations framed by the UGC and having
implemented the recommendations in respect of Full time
Lecturers should not deny the similar entitlement as
provided in the UGC regulations to the Part Time
Lecturers."
6. In view of the above, the present petition is
allowed to the extent that the Government Resolutions
dated 17.01.2012 and 30.05.2015 respectively are hereby
quashed and set aside. The Government is directed to
provide the benefits of proportionate amount of salary on
the basis of the scale and proportionate increments,
dearness allowance and other permissible benefits to
those persons who were appointed as the Permanent
Part Time Teachers prior to 21/03/1999. Those persons
who were appointed as the Guest Lecturers/Part Time
Teachers under the subsequent circulars of the UGC
would be entitled to the benefit of the honorarium as
provided by the UGC under the circular dated 21/03/1999
as revised from time to time.
7. However, it is clarified that this order will be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7661/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
implemented subject to outcome of Letters Patent Appeal
No. 369 of 2016 in Special Civil Application No. 10240
of 2012.
8. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
