The Supreme Court addressed whether Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018, is applicable for shortlisting candidates for Assistant Professor positions. The Court ruled that Regulation 10(f)(iii), which excludes certain categories of teaching experience (e.g., guest lecturers and contractual faculty), cannot be read down or set aside arbitrarily without being proven ultra vires. It emphasized that the regulation is within the UGC's policy domain, reflecting expertise and reasoned deliberation.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. UGC Regulations, 2018

   • Regulation 4: Direct recruitment qualifications.
   • Regulation 10: Counting of past services for recruitment and promotions.
   • Table 3A: Academic score criteria for shortlisting candidates.

2. Constitution of India, 1950

   • Article 14: Equality before the law.

Key Issues and Ratio Decidendi:

1. Issue:
   Whether Regulation 10(f)(iii), which requires specific salary thresholds for considering contractual teaching experience, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14.

2. Court's Ratio:

   • Regulation 10(f)(iii) is a policy decision framed by experts.
   • Judicial review cannot override the regulation unless proven unconstitutional or ultra vires.
   • Teaching experience under contractual terms, not meeting prescribed salary conditions, cannot automatically qualify for marks under Table 3A unless the regulation explicitly allows.

1. Background of the Case

• Para 2: The respondent, Geetanjali Tiwari, applied for Assistant Professor posts but was not shortlisted because her contractual teaching experience didn’t meet the required conditions.
• Para 3: The UGC Regulations, 2018, guided shortlisting criteria, including marks for teaching experience under Table 3A.

2. Challenges Raised

• Para 8: The respondent argued that Regulation 10(f)(iii) discriminates against contractual faculty and violates Article 14.
• Para 36: The High Court read down Regulation 10(f)(iii), limiting its applicability to senior academic posts (Associate Professors/Professors).

3. Supreme Court's Observations

• Para 41-45: The Court ruled that:
  • The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reading down the regulation without declaring it ultra vires.
  • Regulation 10(f)(iii) applies to Assistant Professor recruitment as per UGC's expert framework.
  • Shortlisting methods, including enhanced criteria, are permissible if not arbitrary or discriminatory.

4. Final Directions

• Para 47: The appellants (Allahabad University) were allowed to adhere to Regulation 10(f)(iii) for shortlisting. Past selections unaffected.

Subjects:

Recruitment Policies, Judicial Review, Equality under Article 14, and Academic Appointments.

#UGCRegulations2018 #HigherEducation #RecruitmentPolicy #JudicialReview #AssistantProfessor #EqualityBeforeLaw