Summary
Dr. Jayakumar, whose Ph.D. was awarded in 2006, was selected in 2012 as Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Kerala under an advertisement exempting Ph.D. holders from NET. The Kerala High Court set aside his appointment at the instance of the second-ranked candidate. Following P. Suseela, it held that under the 2009/2010 UGC Regulations only Ph.D.s awarded under the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations were exempt, and that the 2016 amendment was prospective. The Court held that the 2016 amendment, reinforced by the 2018 Regulations, was meant to restore the NET exemption to pre-11.07.2009 Ph.D. holders. It operates retrospectively and applies to pending proceedings. Reading it prospectively would be absurd. The appeals were allowed and the appointment upheld.
Issues
- Whether a candidate awarded a Ph.D. before 11.07.2009, not under the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations, was eligible without NET for appointment as Lecturer in 2012.
- Whether the 2016 amendment to the UGC Regulations exempting pre-2009 Ph.D. holders from NET operates retrospectively and protects such an appointment.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 3.3.1 and the 2016 proviso, UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff) Regulations, 2010, as amended in 2016The 2016 proviso exempts candidates registered for Ph.D. before 11.07.2009 from NET on stated conditions. Read with the 2018 Regulations, it was held clarificatory and retrospective, so it protected the appellant's appointment. (¶¶ 10, 17, 18, 19, 26)
- Section 26(3), University Grants Commission Act, 1956The UGC may make regulations with retrospective effect. The absence of an express statement did not bar inferring retrospective operation from the language and purpose of the 2016 amendment. (¶¶ 12, 21, 22)
Held
- Successive UGC Regulations had long exempted M.Phil. and Ph.D. holders from NET. The 2009/2010 Regulations broke from this by limiting the exemption to Ph.D.s under the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations, suddenly disqualifying many earlier Ph.D. holders. P. Suseela held, on the Central Government's view, that only post-2009 Regulation Ph.D.s were exempt. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
- A provision is retrospective if so declared expressly or if that intention clearly follows from its words and context. Declaratory, curative or clarificatory amendments ordinarily operate from an antecedent date. Courts, including appellate courts, must give effect to a change in law that by clear intendment reaches pending proceedings. (¶¶ 19, 20, 22, 23, 24)
- The 2016 amendment, made clearer by the 2018 Regulations, was meant to protect pre-2009 Ph.D. holders, many already appointed and teaching. Reading it prospectively would be absurd, invalidating long-standing appointments and taking away seniority and accrued benefits. It therefore applies retrospectively and protects the appellant's appointment. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 26)
- P. Suseela and Manoj Sharma did not consider the 2016 or 2018 amendments, and Manoj Sharma concerned M.Phil. holders. Neither governs the present question. (¶¶ 19, 25)
Result
Appeals allowed. The High Court's judgment is set aside and Dr. Jayakumar's appointment upheld; no order as to costs.