AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The point involved in this case is whether N.E.T. qualification is necessary for appointment of Lecturers in A.M.U. from persons holding Ph.D. or M.Phil. degree. The Calcutta High Court in its judgment dated 14.9.2001 Writ Petition No. 12593 (W) of 2000. Narayan Chandra Jana. v. Union of India, copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, has held that it is not necessary, and it has quashed the notification dated 21.4.2000 and 4.4.2000. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the University that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court is distinguishable because in Calcutta, there was no University Statutes whereas A.M.U. Statutes requires N.E.T. qualification. The University Statutes are based on the U.G.C. guidelines, and since the guidelines have been quashed by the Calcutta High Court, the very basis of the University Statutes disappears as the Statutes are only consequential to the U.G.C. guidelines. We are prima facie in agreement with the decision of the Calcutta High Court.
In view of the decision of the Calcutta High Court, we direct that till further order the persons who hold Ph.D. or M.Phil, degree will be allowed to appear for selection of lecturer in A.M.U. without requiring from them N.E.T. certificate. This order will be subject to the final decision of the writ petition.