UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION Vs. RAJKUMAR K.K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The University Grants Commission ["UGC" for brevity"] is the appellant, aggrieved with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The judgment, in the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent, directed the Kannur University to consider the writ petitioner (1 st respondent) for promotion as Lecturer Senior Scale or Selection Grade without any delay. The UGC submits that the said direction is in violation of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 ["Regulations of 2010" for brevity].

(2.) The brief facts to be noticed are that the 1st respondent was working as Lecturer in Computer Science in N.A.M.College, Kallikandy, affiliated to the Kannur University, which appointment was approved by order dated 12.09.2002. Later, when a vacant post was notified in the Department of Information Science of Kannur University, the 1st respondent applied for the post. Since there were no eligible NET qualified candidates, the 1st respondent, who stood first in the selection, was appointed and his appointment approved with effect from 28.02.2003. At that time, the Regulations as applicable contained a provision by which there was a relaxation provided to the prescribed qualification in a subject in which NET is not conducted or enough number of candiates with NET qualification are not available. The University is said to have sought the concurrence of the UGC for enabling such relaxation especially in the circumstance of no candidate with NET qualification having appeared for the selection. It is averred that the same was followed up with various reminders; but nothing is produced to substantiate the same. In any event, the 1st respondent continued and what is evident is a communication at Exhibit P4 dated 06.05.2010, again seeking for a relaxation in the minimum qualification prescribed. The earlier communication or the later one was not responded to by the UGC. The 1st respondent continued and in the year 2012, sought for consideration under the Career Advancement Scheme ["CAS" for brevity], a scheme under the Regulations of the UGC. The Syndicate is said to have approved the same as is seen from Exhibit P5 and the Selection Committee also recommended the 1st respondent to be promoted as Lecturer (Senior Scale). Later, the Syndicate by Exhibit P7 resolved to decline the CAS promotion and directed re-submission of the application after acquiring NET/Ph.D qualification. This is in accordance with the Regulations of the UGC.

(3.) The learned Single Judge found that a NET qualification is mandatory as per the UGC Regulations; but the writ petitioner-1st respondent was appointed in the year 2003 when there was an Exemption Committee which considered and granted exemption. However, the Exemption Committees were dismantled and at the time of consideration of the writ petition, there was no committee in existence. Hence, there was no scope to direct consideration of the exemption/relaxation as sought for by the University. However, taking into account the fact that the 1 st respondent is an appointee of the year 2003, the learned Single Judge found that he should be given exemption from NET qualification. Exhibit P10 issued by the Government of Kerala was also noticed, which indicated the relaxation being ordered by the State Government in public interest and also in the teeth of dearth of qualified NET hands. It was in this circumstance that the direction was issued to the University for considering the promotion of the 1st respondent.