Minimum eligibility qualification set by UGC for various posts cannot be relaxed by Universities or Colleges: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently observed that the minimum eligibility qualification set by the University Grants Commission (UGC) for various posts cannot be relaxed by universities or colleges. [Manjunath Mallinath Hiremath vs Karnataka High Court and others].Single-judge Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said that while minimum eligibility criteria cannot be relaxed or brought down, qualifications over and above such minimum criteria can be prescribed by colleges. ."This minimum eligibility qualification (by UGC) cannot be relaxed by any University or College where as any qualification over and above this minimum can be prescribed by the Universities or Colleges. The UGC has prescribed the minimum eligibility qualification with an object of maintaining standards in the higher education. Attempt to lower this norm will have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the institutions of higher education which would defeat the very object of the UGC which is a apex expert body," the judgment said. .The judgment was delivered in a plea by one Manjunath Mallinath Hiremath (petitioner) to quash the appointment of the one Sridevi PG (respondent no. 2) as Assistant Professor at the Karnataka University. .Advocate Avinash Angadi appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Hiremath had got higher marks during his academic career compared to the respondent, and the petitioner even had work experience unlike the respondent.Further, it was submitted that as per the notification issued by the University, those who have obtained Ph.D after July 11, 2009 must have completed the same with course work and that the applicants while applying must strictly adhere to the UGC (Minimum qualifications for appointment teachers in Universities and Constituent Colleges) Regulations, 2010. .Advocate KL Patil appearing for the Karnataka University disputed the arguments, submitting that the university had strictly followed the statute and the orders passed by the State government from time to time and the appointment of the respondent no. 2 was in accordance with law.He submitted that the selection committee consisted of experts and having examined the academic qualification, teaching experience and also the requisite qualifications, they have rightly appointed the 2nd respondent..The counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that when she had registered for her Ph.D, there was no requirement for doing the course work since the relevant rules which prevailed at the said point of time did not envisage the same..The Court, after examining the facts of the case, observed that mere possession of Ph.D will not exempt a candidate from the requirement of minimum eligibility qualification of passing the eligibility tests conducted by the UGC. ."It is the contention of the respondents that the 2nd respondent was awarded a Ph.D. Degree in English in the month of December 2012 and therefore she is exempted from possessing the requirement of minimum eligibility of passing the aforesaid eligibility tests. A mere possessing of Ph.D. Degree will not exempt a candidate from the requirement of minimum eligibility qualification of passing the eligibility tests conducted by the UCG or CSIR. The said exemption is granted only if the Ph.D. Degree is awarded in accordance with Regulations of 2009 and the notification/advertisement dated 11.01.2014 further provides that the candidates who have obtained Ph.D. Degree after 11.07.2009 must have completed Ph.D. Degree with course work. The 2nd respondent has obtained her Ph.D. Degree in the month of December 2012. Therefore, the requirement is that she must have completed her Ph.D. Degree with course work," the Court noted. .In the instant case, the Court observed that the petitioner not only possessed all the minimum eligibility qualifications prescribed by the UGC regulations of 2010, but was also the highest mark scorer at the Masters Degree level among the candidates. In fact, the selection committee had overlooked all these aspects and appointed respondent no. 2 who did not even possess the prescribed minimum eligibility qualification, the Court ruled..Therefore, the Court quashed the appointment of respondent no. 2 stating that minimum eligibility qualifications cannot be relaxed. "The UGC has prescribed the minimum eligibility qualification for appointment of Assistant Professor (PG) in English and the notification/advertisement dated 11.01.2014 was issued prescribing the minimum eligibility qualification as per the Regulations of 2010 and it was not open to the 1st respondent or the selection committee to relax any one of the minimum requirement qualifications," the judgment said. .[Read Judgement]