Supreme Court sets aside Allahabad High Court's order diluting norms for recruitment of Asst Professor

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgment which read down regulations with regard to teaching experience for the post of Assistant Professor advertised for Allahabad University and its associated degree college.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra found the HC's division bench decision of January 18, 2024, as unsustainable in law for having exceeded its jurisdiction by resorting to a sort of judicial legislation.

In its judgment on December 18, the bench underscored the act of reading down a provision, that must be undertaken only if doing so can keep the operation of the statute “within the purpose of the Act and constitutionally valid”.

The bench said a court cannot grant relief claimed by a party in the absence of the requisite pleadings and clarified that the rule for reading down a provision is to be used sparingly and in limited circumstances.

Acting on appeals filed by Allahabad University and Allahabad Degree College, the bench said the division bench has read down Reg 10(f)(iii) the University Grants Commission (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, 2018, on the specious ground.

"In our view, this course of action was impermissible," the bench said.

As per clause 10(f)(iii), previous service of a lecturer on a contractual basis would count as ‘teaching experience’ only if the incumbent was drawing total gross emoluments not less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor.

The HC's judgment came on a plea by respondent Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) as she was not granted any marks for her past services as a guest lecturer and on a contractual basis, and thus was not shortlisted for an interview.

The court stressed the recruiting authorities can't dilute in any manner the norms and standards prescribed by the statutory provisions but they can always prescribe enhanced norms to have the zone of consideration for interview restricted to those aspirants satisfying the higher criteria.

The court said once Regulation 10 specifically refers to the counting of previous regular service, whether national or international, inter alia as Assistant Professor, the division bench in the exercise of its judicial review powers could not have held that the same has no application to one aspiring for appointment as an Assistant Professor.

"Law is well settled that courts cannot add words to a statute or read words into it, which are not there; at the same time, it cannot also read a statute in a manner that results in deletion of words which are there. This is for the simple reason that the court has no power to legislate; hence, it cannot rewrite the legislation. Bearing this principle in mind, the division bench was wholly unjustified in its approach," the bench said.

The court pointed out as a matter of policy, that the UGC has laid down qualifications mandatory in nature for eligibility as well as marks for teaching experience earned from past service of the nature ordained which, of course, is in the nature of a desirable quality and is such that the 2018 Regulations permit for being taken into consideration for shortlisting of candidates, more particularly when the proportion of candidates applying for the number of posts available is quite high.

"We find no justification to uphold the view taken by the division bench of the High Court. It was never the intention to deprive aspirants of marks for their teaching experience as Assistant Professors, albeit for shortlisting purposes," the bench said.

The bench opined conditions of eligibility for entitlement to secure marks, which have been laid down, are matters of policy over which the courts have no expertise.

"Judicial review would not extend to cases of the present nature where regulations are framed by experts having a fair measure of idea of what is required and what is not for appointment on teaching posts. The division bench overstepped its limits and treaded a territory, which was forbidden," the bench said.

Allahabad University showed records of multiple aspirants, shortlisted for interview, for past teaching experience gained on the basis of contractual service for they had been drawing salary in the pay scale for academic level prescribed by the UGC/7th Central Pay Commission, i.e., drawing salary equal to that of a regularly appointed faculty.

The court found 69 candidates were shortlisted and called for an interview for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Sanskrit (the cut-off marks being 87.17), who were competing against each other for appointment on only one unreserved vacancy. The respondent had secured 81 marks and between 87.17 and 81 marks, there were 147 candidates.

Having gone through the records, the court said the methodology adopted for narrowing the zone of consideration was in sync with the regulations.

The HC ought not to have been swayed in its decision-making process because of teaching experience not being a mandatory eligibility criterion, the bench said.

The court felt the HC returned findings in the matter which are not only unwarranted but are wholly unacceptable.

The bench also emphasised while deciding a writ petition based on affidavits, the writ court’s enquiry ought to be restricted to the case pleaded by the parties and the evidence placed on record. Findings of the court have to be based on the pleadings and the evidence.

"It is well-nigh impermissible for the writ court to conjecture and surmise and make out a third case, not pleaded by the parties, based on arguments advanced in the course of hearing," the bench said.

In the case, the bench said it was not open to the division bench to surmise and conjecture and to be guided to a particular direction based on a ‘perceived anomaly’ while giving its decision.

"We are inclined to the view that the division bench, in the absence of the requisite pleadings and the ramifications that are closely associated with its decision, ought to have adopted a hands-off approach in this regard," the bench said.