Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. (Smt) Pramila Kori vs Higher Education Department on 8 October, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29293
1 WP-19566-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 8 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 19566 of 2020
DR. (SMT) PRAMILA KORI
Versus
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal, arbitrary and mala fide order
dated 14.8.2020 (Annexure P/9) issued by the Respondent No.2 sanctioning
benefit of Selection Grade Pay Scale of Rs. 12000-18300/- and AGP of Rs. 8000/-
w.e.f. 24.9.2017 whereas the petitioner is entitled to be granted this benefit after
completion of 5 years of service in the Senior Grade PayScale of Rs. 10000-
15200/- i.e. w.e.f. 5.10.2014 and benefit of Pay Band IV i.e. placement in the pay
scale of Rs. 37400-67000/- + AGP9000/- after completion of 3 years of service in
the Selection Grade Pay Scale i.e. w.e.f. 5.10.2017 in gross violation of provisions
of UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers
and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as
"UGC Regulations, 2018") (Annexure P/10) as well as Public Notice dated
16.10.2018(Annexure P/11) issued by the UGC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the issue involved in the
present petition is covered by the judgment passed by the co-ordinate bench in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29293
2 WP-19566-2020
case of DR. SMT. SHAILBALA GANDHI Vs. STATE of MP passed in WP
No.23639/2023.
On 08.09.2025, learned counsel for the respondent/state was granted time to
examine whether the matter is covered by the said judgment.
In the reply filed by the respondent/state in para no.5, the respondents have
taken a specific stand that the representations of the petitioner were placed before
the screening committee to consider the case of the petitioner. In para no.6 of the
reply, it is stated that the case of the petitioner has already been scrutinised for
screening on its meeting dated 24.02.2021 and the appropriate orders will be
issued as per the recommendation of the committee.
The petitioner has filed the rejoinder placing the subsequent orders
Annexure P/17 and 18 dated 08.08.2022 by which the petitioner has been directed
to be given the benefit of selection grade pay scale of Rs.12000-18000 (revised to
Rs.15600-39100 + 8000 AGP) with effect from 18.07.2018 i.e. next date of
completion of one of the refresher course by the petitioner.
Thus, the petitioner has been granted the relief after consideration of his
representation by the committee from the next date of completion of one of the
refresher course.
During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has been sanctioned pay
band by order dated 23.04.2025 but the same has not been granted from the due
date.
Upon perusal of the judgment passed in the case of DR. SMT.
SHAILBALA GANDHI (supra), this Court finds that the issue raised in the
present petition has already been decided in the said judgment in which it has been
held that the petitioner would be entitled to claim the benefit of selection grade pay
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29293
3 WP-19566-2020
and pay band IV. In this regard, relevant para nos.9,10,11 are reproduced as under
:-
9] A perusal of the aforesaid provision would clearly reveal that the
requirement of orientation course and refresher course shall not be
mandatory up to 31.12.2018, and it is also provided that the promotions
would not be held up only because of the non-completion of the said
conditions, which could still be fulfilled up to 31st December, 2023.
10] So far as the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) is concerned, relevant paragraphs of the
same read as under:-
20.2 The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provision for the
coordination and determination of standards in universities and for that
purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission. Section 12 deals
with "Functions of the Commission", while Section 14 speaks of
"Consequences of failure of universities to comply with
recommendations of the Commission". Section 26 deals with "Power
to make regulations". As per Section 28 the rules and regulations
framed under the UGC Act are required to be laid before each House of
Parliament and when both the Houses agree then rules and regulations
can be given effect with such modification as may be made by
Parliament. Therefore, any regulation enacted in exercise of powers
under Section 26 can be said to be subordinate legislation
23. In view of the aforesaid Letter No. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i), dated 31-
12-2008 issued by the Government of India and in exercise of the
powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of subsection (1) of Section
26 of the UGC Act, 1956, UGC enacted the Regulations, 2010 in
supersession of the UGC Regulations, 2000. It was published in the
Gazette of India on 28-6-2010 and came into force with immediate
effect.
25. Regulation 7.4.0 mandates that the universities/State Governments
shall modify or amend the relevant Acts/Statutes of the universities
concerned within six months of adoption of these Regulations.
29.It is not in dispute that the SP University is receiving Central
financial assistance under the Scheme and it is included in the State
Universities receiving Central financial assistance as per Section 12(b)
of the UGC Act, 1956. Therefore, having adopted the UGC Scheme
and implemented the same and getting Central financial assistance to
the extent of 80% of the maintenance expenditure, the State
Government and the SP University are bound by the UGC Regulations,
2010. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are superseded by the UGC
Regulations, 2018. However, the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice-
Chancellor and the constitution of the Search Committee for
appointment of a Vice-Chancellor remains the same. Therefore, the
State of Gujarat and the universities thereunder including the SP
University are bound to follow UGC Regulations, 2010 and UGC
Regulations, 2018
34. Thus, the provisions of the SPU Act, 1955/provisions under the
State legislation are just contrary to the UGC Regulations 2010/2018,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29293
4 WP-19566-2020
which, as observed hereinabove, are binding on the State Government
and the universities thereunder. Even the State Government has not
bothered to amend the State legislation to put it a on a par with the
UGC Regulations 2010/2018 and has continued the appointment in the
universities dehors the UGC Regulations
42. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per Section 9 of the
SPU Act, 1955, H.E. the Governor of Gujarat is the Chancellor of the
University and he shall, by virtue of his office, be the head of the
University and the President of the Senate. Therefore, even as the head
of the University, his advice was/is binding upon the University and
therefore, the State ought to have taken the necessary steps at the
Government level as requested in the communication dated 30-8-2014.
Even the request made by the H.E. the Governor of Gujarat, who is also
the Chancellor of the University, ought not to have been taken very
lightly. The State ought to have taken the corrective measures by
suitably amending the State legislation on a par with the UGC
Regulations.
44. Thus, we find that the appointment of Respondent 4 is contrary to
the UGC Regulations, 2018. Also, Respondent 4 has been appointed by
a Search Committee, not constituted as per the UGC Regulations, 2018.
Moreover, Respondent 4 does not fulfil the eligibility criteria as per the
UGC Regulations, 2018, namely, having ten years of teaching work
experience as a Professor in the
university system. As observed hereinabove, by adopting the Scheme
and having accepted 80% of the maintenance expenditure from the
Central Government and when Respondent 4 is paid a fixed pay of Rs
75,000 along with a special allowance of Rs 5000 per month, which is
prescribed as per the Scheme of 2008, the State and the universities
thereunder are bound by the UGC Regulations, 2010 including the
UGC Regulations, 2018.
48. It is clear that the respondent State of Gujarat has failed to take note
of the communication from the UGC and instead the respondent
University has left it to the sweet will of the Search Committee to
prescribe eligibility criteria for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor
of the University. The eligibility criteria when once fixed by the UGC
under its regulations would in our view apply to all the universities
which are aided by the UGC to be bound by the said regulations even
in the absence of the same being incorporated under the respective
universities Act of the respective States.
50. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are enacted by the
UGC in exercise of powers under Sections 26(1)(e) and 26(1) (g) of the
UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the UGC Act every rule and regulation
made under the said Act, shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
Therefore, being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes
part of the Act. In case of any conflict between the State legislation and
the Central legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the
rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the
Constitution as the subject "education" is in the Concurrent List (List
III) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Therefore, any
appointment as a Vice-Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the
UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29293
5 WP-19566-2020
provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto."
11] In view of the same, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the
petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of University Grants
Commission whose regulations would prevail over any State
government's regulations."
This Court finds that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely
covered and answered by the co-ordinate bench in the aforesaid judgments,
therefore, the impugned order dated 14.08.2020 is quashed and the respondents
are directed to grant the benefit of Selection Grade pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 (Rs.
12000-18300 and Rs. 15600-39100/- + AGP 8000/-) w.e.f 5.10.2014 and benefit
of Pay Band - IV i.e. placement in the pay scale of Rs.37400-67000+ Rs.9000
AGP w.e.f 5.10.2017 and to revise the pay of the petitioner and to release arrears
thereof together with interest @6% per annum from the date it became due till the
same is paid.
With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
