SUMITHRA DEVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annexure to the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000, framed by the University Grants Commission, in exercise of powers conferred on it by clause (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of S.26 read with S.14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, prescribe the minimum qualifications for the post of Professors, Principals, Readers and Lecturers in subjects other than Fine Arts, Management, Engineering and Technology in Universities or Colleges, for appointment of persons through open advertisement and for their Career Advancement. For the post of Lecturer by Direct Recruitment, prior to its amendment by the Second Amendment Regulations, 2006 notified on 14/06/2006, the qualifications prescribed in the Regulations were:

(2.) The contention of the petitioners is that in view of the Supreme Court decisions on the subject, the power to legislate on the coordination and determination of standards of institution of higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions, being exclusively vested with the Parliament, the Parliament having passed the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, constituting the University Grants Commission conferring it with the general duty to take all such steps as it may think fit for promotion and coordination of University education and for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities, the State Government and Universities are bound by the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 as amended, and neither the Universities or the State Government can prescribe norms inconsistent with those prescribed under those Regulations which has been done in this case. The contention is that just like the prescription of qualifications, any relaxation prescribed by the Regulations is also binding on the State Government and Universities and they cannot have their own norms omitting any part of the Regulations prescribed by the UGC. In support of their contentions they refer to the provisions of the UGC Act and the Regulations, orders on Revised U.G.C. Scheme, 1998 issued by the Government of Kerala and the Kerala University Regulations Relating to Qualifications of Teachers, as also the following decisions:--

(3.) In answer to these contentions, the respondents would contend that the prescription is only against prescribing standards adverse to or lower than those prescribed by the UGC and since by omitting a relaxation of essential qualification, they are essentially prescribing a higher standard, there is nothing inconsistent with the central legislation or the UGC Regulations. They refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of T. N. and Another v. S. V. Bratheep (Minor) and Others, 2004 KHC 774 : 2004 (2) KLT SN 38 : AIR 2004 SC 1861 : 2004 (4) SCC 513, and a Single Bench decision of this Court in WP (C) No. 9712 of 2007 in support. On these contentions, respondents would support the University Orders and the Government Order omitting the exemption granted to M.Phil degree holders from NET for UG level teaching.