Service Bench Nos. 1759, 1760, 1774 of 2013, 639 of 2011, 191 of 2014, 1405 of 2013 and 1095 of 2015. Case: Ramesh Chandra and Ors. Vs Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University and Ors.. Allahabad High Court

Case Number:Service Bench Nos. 1759, 1760, 1774 of 2013, 639 of 2011, 191 of 2014, 1405 of 2013 and 1095 of 2015
Party Name:Ramesh Chandra and Ors. Vs Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: Sameer Kalia, Adv. and For Respondents: Aprajita Bansal and Rajesh Tewari, Advs.
Judges:S. N. Shukla and Akhtar Husain Khan, JJ.
Issue:University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - Sections 12, 12(3), 12A, 13, 14, 2, 20, 25, 26, 3, 9(1)
Judgement Date:November 03, 2015
Court:Allahabad High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

S. N. Shukla, J.

  1. Heard Mr. S.K. Kalia, Mr. I.B. Singh, Mr. J.N. Mathur learned Senior Counsels, Dr. L.P. Mishra, Mr. Sandeep Dixit, Mr. Ramesh Pandey, Mr. Prashant Singh 'Atal', Mr. Mudit Agarwal and Mr. Brijendra Singh, learned counsels for the petitioners as well as Mr. Rajesh Tiwari and Mr. Alok Mathur learned counsels for the respondents.

  2. The petitioners are working as Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors respectively in Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow (in short 'the University'). The University had issued an advertisement on 26.05.2010 inviting applications for selection on the post of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors in different subjects. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioners applied since they possess the qualification prescribed for appointment on the post of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors. The last date of submission of application was fixed as on 30.06.2010. The University proceeded to make selection under the provisions of Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University Act, 1994 (in short 'the Act, 1994') and completed the same accordingly. On the last date of submission of application i.e. 30.06.2010, the University Grants Commission (in short 'the UGC') framed regulations with regard to minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education that was known as 'the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010' (in short 'the UGC Regulations, 2010') which came into force with immediate effect.

  3. It is not in dispute that in the advertisement, the requisite qualification was prescribed as was provided under the Statute of the University. The UGC Regulations, 2010 also provides the same very qualifications with minor changes. There was no change in the qualification prescribed for the Assistant Professors and Professors in the Act, whereas in the qualification prescribed for the post of Associate Professors, some relaxation was provided. There is no dispute that the petitioners possess the qualifications prescribed under the provisions of the Act or under the Regulations framed by the UGC. The dispute confines only with regard to the procedure of selection. After the petitioners' selection it was placed before the Board of Management for its approval. In the meanwhile it appears that some complaints with regard to the same very selection were received in the University, therefore the Board of Management examined the petitioners matter in terms of complaints in its 41st meeting held on 26.09.2011. In the meanwhile some unsuccessful candidates also filed a writ petition being writ petition No. 639 (S/B) of 2011, whereby they had prayed to quash the advertisement dated 06.02.2010 and for issuing a mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to proceed with the selection process without making necessary amendment in the University Ordinance of 2004 to incorporate the UGC Regulations, 2010. This Court entertained the writ petition and as an interim measure provided that "if any selection or appointment is made by the opposite parties that shall be subject to further order passed by this Court."

  4. Their claims are that once the UGC has framed new guidelines for selection, which came into force w.e.f. 30.06.2010 that should have been inserted in the Statute of the University before proceeding for selection but since it has not been done, the selection is vitiated in law. The case of the University is that after framing the Regulations of the UGC, it replaces the provisions of the Statute of the University automatically...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL