Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's ruling that Regulation 10 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 does not apply when awarding marks for teaching experience in shortlisting candidates for Assistant Professor, holding that the High Court impermissibly 'read down' Regulation 10(f)(iii) without finding it ultra vires, effectively deleted words from it, and relied on an unpleaded anomaly; universities may shortlist using Regulations 4 and 10 with Tables 3A and 3B.
Issues
- Whether Regulation 10 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, including clause (f)(iii) requiring contractual teachers to have drawn emoluments not less than a regular Assistant Professor's salary, governs the award of marks for teaching experience under clause 7 of Tables 3A and 3B in shortlisting for Assistant Professor.
- Whether the High Court could read down Regulation 10(f)(iii) without holding it ultra vires.
- Whether a recruiting body may adopt a stricter shortlisting method where selection is solely by interview.
- Whether a writ court can grant relief on a ground not pleaded.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 10, including clauses (e) and (f)(iii), UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges) Regulations, 2018Regulation 10 expressly covers counting of past service for direct recruitment as Assistant Professor; guest lecturer service is excluded by clause (e), and contractual service counts under clause (f)(iii) only if emoluments were not less than a regular appointee's salary. The Court held it applies to marking teaching experience for shortlisting. (¶¶ 2, 40, 43, 44, 46, 48)
- Regulation 4.1 (Note) and clause 7 of Tables 3A and 3B, UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges) Regulations, 2018The academic score in Tables 3A and 3B is used only to shortlist for interview, with selection based solely on interview; clause 7 awards two marks per year of teaching or post-doctoral experience (capped at ten) and was held to have a direct relation with Regulation 10. (¶¶ 40, 47, 48)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaThe challenge that the emoluments condition in Regulation 10(f)(iii) was discriminatory was not decided by the High Court; the Supreme Court noted that the shortlisted contractual candidates had drawn regular-scale salary, which the respondent could not dispute, removing the basis of her challenge. (¶¶ 6, 7, 42, 46)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaA writ court deciding on affidavits must confine itself to the pleaded case and evidence on record, and cannot make out a third case from arguments at the hearing. (¶¶ 31, 36, 37, 49)
Held
- Reading down is a subsidiary rule used sparingly to save a provision found to be ultra vires, keeping its operation within the purpose of the Act and constitutionally valid; a court cannot read down a provision without first finding it invalid, nor merely to avoid examining a challenge to its vires. (¶¶ 22, 24, 27, 42)
- Courts cannot add words to a statute or read it so as to delete words that are there. Since Regulation 10 expressly refers to past service as Assistant Professor, holding that it has no application to appointment as Assistant Professor amounted to judicial legislation. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 43)
- The conditions for awarding marks for past teaching experience are policy matters framed by expert bodies, beyond the scope of judicial review; the High Court's view would deprive candidates fulfilling all conditions of Regulation 10 of marks and force selectors to interview very large numbers for few posts. (¶¶ 44, 45, 46)
- Where selection is solely by interview, a recruiting authority may not dilute prescribed norms for shortlisting but may adopt enhanced norms or higher criteria on a rational basis, provided they are not arbitrary or contrary to the governing rules; Allahabad University's marking under Regulations 4 and 10 with Table 3A to narrow the zone of consideration was valid. (¶¶ 29, 30, 47)
- A candidate fulfilling the conditions of Regulation 10 read with clause 7 of Tables 3A or 3B is entitled to marks for teaching or post-doctoral experience, subject to the ten-mark cap; past service is not a precondition for direct recruitment as Assistant Professor. (¶ 48)
- A writ court must decide on the pleadings and evidence placed on affidavit; the High Court erred in relying on a perceived anomaly about 'post-doctoral experience' that was never pleaded, and should have sought clarification from the UGC or the appellants or refrained from deciding it. (¶¶ 37, 49)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment dated 18.01.2024 set aside; Respondent 1's writ petition, special appeal and review application dismissed and the Single Judge's order affirmed; Brahma Deo's petition dismissed; no order as to costs.