Background

A group of assistant professors from colleges in Maharashtra were denied promotion due to lack of a Ph.D. degree, even if he meets all the qualifications and has received recommendations for promotion. These teachers were appointed in 2006 and 2007, much before the UGC Regulations of 2018, which required a doctorate. as a qualification for promotion. The petitioners argued that the new 2018 regulations should not apply retroactively to their promotions, as they were already qualified under the 2016 regulations, which did not allow them to obtain a doctorate degree. OBLIGATORY.

Upon the state government’s adoption of the 2018 regulations through a resolution in March 2019, promotions were stopped for professors without doctorate degrees. The university, after initially approving their promotions, had forwarded them for further validation, but the state’s joint education director ultimately withheld final approval, citing the updated regulations. The petitioners sought a declaration that their promotions should be conducted in accordance with the 2016 regulations, which did not require a doctorate. for advancement to the position of associate professor.

Arguments

The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Mr. PR Katneshwarkar, argued that they met the criteria of the UGC Regulations, 2016. They contended that the retrospective application of the 2018 regulations was unfair and did not comply with the legislative intent of the UGC guidelines, which allowed older rules to be applied to those already in service. They also cited a recent UGC notification removing the disputed provision, arguing that this confirmed their position on non-retrospective application.

The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and the UGC representatives, argued that the UGC Regulations of 2018 and the corresponding government resolution of 2019 explicitly required a Ph.D. for promotion, which is legally binding. Citing judgments highlighting the central authority of UGC regulations over state policies, they argued that the petitioners’ claims for promotion were not valid without a doctorate, in line with the binding nature of the 2018 guidelines.

Court reasoning

First, the court observed that the UGC Regulations, 2018 and the corresponding government resolution, 2019, did not make any provision for retrospective application, establishing that the new regulations generally operate prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise. This meant that the petitioners, who were eligible for promotion under the 2016 norms, could not be required to obtain the new Ph.D. condition of advancement. Second, the Court emphasized the principle that legislation imposing additional qualification criteria should not disrupt vested rights or legitimate expectations. Since the petitioners had received recommendations for promotion from their university in accordance with the 2016 guidelines, they had a legitimate expectation of progression according to these standards. Require a Ph.D. at this point, the court said, this would constitute undue hardship.

Thirdly, the court clarified that the petitioners were subject only to the qualification standards applicable at the time of their initial appointment and continued service as per the UGC norms. He further noted that the 2016 regulations allowed alternative qualifications to be considered, with a doctorate. only as an optional criterion for waiving publication requirements, not as a stand-alone promotional mandate. The court also rejected the respondents’ reliance on other cases, such as Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of Biharwhere the conflict was over legislative supremacy between state regulations and those of the UGC. The court distinguished this case, noting that the petitioners’ scenario did not involve conflicting national legislation; it was simply a question of which UGC regulations applied.

Finally, the court emphasized that any changes to academic promotion criteria should prioritize continuity and fairness, particularly in education sectors, where career progression impacts the quality of education. long-term education. Since the 2016 regulations were the standard in force when the petitioners were eligible for promotion, he held that any subsequent regulations should not interfere with their vested rights. Thus, the court directed the State Joint Director of Education to re-evaluate the petitioners’ promotion proposals under the 2016 Regulations within six weeks, saying that the UGC Regulations 2018 and the 2019 government resolution requiring a doctorate. would not apply to the petitioners’ cases. The written requests were partially granted.

Date: 25-10-2024

Quote: 2024:BHC-AUGUST:26548-DB, Vijayamala Tanaji Ghuge & Ors. c. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Counsel for the applicants: Senior Advocate, Mr. PR Katneshwarkar

Counsel for the respondents: Shri SP Joshi, AGP for the State; Shri SW Munde for UGC

Click here to read/download the order