AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present batch of writ petitions is filed to declare the action of Respondents in rejecting the applications of the Petitioners for the post of Assistant Professor/Associate Professor for want of emoluments as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.14, Higher Education (UE) Department, dated 13.02.2019 under clause 10(f) of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 (for short ‘the UGC Regulations’).
As the issue in these writ petitions is common, with the consent of learned counsel, the matters were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Facts leading the cases:
Recruitment notifications were issued by Public Universities in the State separately on 15.05.2026 inviting online applications for various posts viz., Assistant Professor and Associate Professor. It was stated that about 1500 posts across the Universities in the State are sought to be filled up. The Petitioners, having requisite academic qualifications and working in various Universities in different designations on a non-regular basis for a considerable period of time and discharging duties akin to Associate Professor/Assistant Professor, applied for the post of Associate Professor under different notifications.
Their applications were rejected on the ground that the Petitioners are not having regular service with requisite pay-scale as required for appointment to the post of Associate Professor as per the UGC Regulations as adopted by the State of A.P. vide G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 13.02.2019 among other correctable grounds.
The University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degree) Regulations 2018 is the parent regulation governing the appointments to various posts in the Universities. The State adopted the selection criteria vide G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 13.02.2019, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.20, Higher Education (UE) Department, dated 28.06.2023. The eligibility as per the UGC Regulations, 2018 for appointment as Associate Professor is provided in Regulation 4.1 and the same reads as under:
Associate Professor:
Eligibility:
i)A good academic record, with a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned/allied/relevant disciplines.
ii) A Master„s Degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point-scale, wherever the grading system is followed).
iii) A minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and / or research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University, College or Accredited Research Institution/industry with a minimum of seven publications in the peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals and a total research score of Seventy five (75) as per the criteria given in Appendix II, Table 2.
The clauses (i) and (ii) of the above are the educational qualifications and these aspects are non-negotiable. Only individuals who meet these criteria are entitled to apply for the post. The clause (iii) speaks of eight years of teaching experience with a minimum of seven publications in the peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals and a total research score of seventy five (75) as per the criteria given in Appendix II, Table-2 and even this being a facet of eligibility criteria is non-negotiable.
The method of calculating the eight (08) years of teaching experience as required in Regulation 4.1(iii) is provided in Regulation 10 and the same reads as under:
10.0 Counting of Past Services for Direct Recruitment and Promotion under CAS;
Previous regular service, whether national or international, as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional organisations such as the CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR and DBT, should count for the direct recruitment and promotion under the CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature, provided that:
(a)The essential qualifications of the post held were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be. (b) The post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre-revised scale of pay as the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) Associate Professor (Reader) and Professor.
(c)The concerned Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor should possess the same minimum qualifications as prescribed by the UGC for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be.
(d)The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down in the Regulations of the University/State Government/Central Government/ Institutions concerned, for such appointments.
(e)The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for any duration.
(f)The previous Ad-hoc or Temporary or contractual service (by whatever nomenclature it may be called) shall be counted for direct recruitment and for promotion, provided that:
(i)the essential qualifications of the post held were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be
(ii)the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee/Selection Committee constituted as per the rules of the respective university;
(iii)the incumbent was drawing total gross emoluments not less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be;
(g)No distinctions shall be made with reference to the nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered (private/local body/Government), while counting the past service under this clause.”
The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.14, Higher Education (UE) Department, dated 13.02.2019 adopting the Revised pay scales of UGC, 2016 and the Recruitment Regulations, 2018. Thereafter, supplemental guidelines were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.20, Higher Education (UE) Department, dated 28.06.2023 for selections to the teaching posts in the Universities. The manner for counting of past service is provided in clause 4.3 thereof and the additional condition is that the emoluments could be verified by Bank account statements and Income tax returns. The clause 4.3 is extracted below;
―4.3 Any claim of past regular teaching experience by an applicant to the post of Assistant Professor/ Associate Professor / Professor, including previous adhoc or temporary or contractual service (by whatever nomenclature it may be called), is valid provided that the claimant fulfils all the following conditions for the concerned period:
(a)Possessed the essential and mandatory qualifications for the post held as stipulated by UGC / concerned Regulatory Authority;
(b)Held a Ph.D. Degree, if applicable, awarded in conformity with the relevant UGC Regulations;
(c)Appointed in the same cadre/equivalent grade post by a Competent Authority only on the recommendations of a duly constituted Selection Committee as per the regulations issued by the UGC/ concerned Regulatory Authority as amended from time to time;
(d)Not appointed as part-time/guest faculty with pay on hourly basis even if paid monthly;
(e)Drawn the pay scale/ total gross emoluments not less than that equivalent to the pay scales applicable to a regularly appointed candidate in such post concerned and it shall be verifiable against his/her bank account statement or Income Tax Returns for that period;
(f)Complied with the required eligibility criteria for promotion to various Academic Levels under CAS as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.14, Higher Education (UE) Department, dated 13.02.2019 and other relevant GOs issued by Government from time to time;
Besides fulfilling the other eligibility conditions, completing 4/5/6 years of experience, as the case may be, as Assistant Professor for promotion to Assistant Professor (SS) / Level 11, 5 years of service as Assistant Professor (SS) in the university/college concerned for promotion to Assistant Professor (SG) / Level 12, 3 years of service as Assistant Professor (SG) in the university/college concerned for Associate Professor / Level 13A and 3 years of experience as Associate Professor in the university/college concerned for Professor/Level 14 is compulsory.”
As per the above UGC Regulations, the teaching experience can be counted whether appointment on Ad hoc or temporary or contractual service (by whatever nomenclature it may be called), when the individual has requisite qualifications and is appointed on the recommendation of a duly constituted selection committee. To this extent, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent-Universities, Sri. G.Ramachandra Rao, would submit that there is no dispute to the appointment after selection process and teaching experience of the Petitioners. Even otherwise, though the nomenclature of some of the Petitioners is stated to be „Academic consultant‟ and not as Assistant Professor, it is to be noted that the teaching posts recognised under the UGC Regulations for appointment are Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor and therefore, notwithstanding the nomenclature adopted by the Universities, the teaching duties, an individual had discharged as an academic consultant have to be construed, at the least, as those of the basic teaching post recognised under the UGC Regulations, i.e. Assistant Professor for counting of service under the UGC Regulations.
The other reason for treating the ‘academic consultants’ as akin to Assistant Professors is that Regulation 13 of the UGC Regulations restricts appointment of Contract teachers to a maximum of 10% of teaching staff. In the course of arguments, it was informed that in the State Universities, there was no recruitment for over 15 years on account of various litigious issues and in that context, the Universities had to resort to different nomenclatures in the appointments, though they were made after notification and by a selection committee.
Coming back to eligibility criteria, the Regulation 10(f)(iii) as highlighted above, links the experience with the gross emoluments of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor/Associate Professor and Professor. This is where the crux of the issue is. Normally, in recruitment to various posts, the educational qualifications and experience would be mentioned as an eligibility criteria, but this Regulation links the emoluments of a post for counting the experience, making it unique in that sense.
The prescription of academic qualifications and experience are the discretion of the employer and is within the ability, control and reach of the aspirants, but the imposition of emoluments as a criteria makes the eligibility of an individual dependent on external factors, i.e., the employer of the aspirant. On a plain reading of this clause, a Government lecturer working on regular basis after selection through a service commission in any Government college teaching corresponding courses or a University professor appointed after selection process on non-regular basis, but without attached emoluments, are also excluded, as they do not have the emoluments of an Assistant Professor as prescribed by UGC, notwithstanding their years of teaching experience.
This dependency of the qualification of the aspirant on the proposed erstwhile employer i.e. a third party, makes the clause manifestly arbitrary in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the aspirant has no control of this. This is so, if it is to be understood as per the language employed without reference to the purport and rationale of the clause. Therefore, the clause is required to be understood in a workable manner without any absurdity, as held in H.S. Vankani v. State of Gujarat1.
“43.It is a well-known rule of construction that the provisions of a statute must be construed so as to give them a sensible meaning. The legislature expects the court to observe the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat (it is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void). The principle also means that if the obvious intention of the statute gives rise to obstacles in implementation, the court must do its best to find ways of overcoming those obstacles, so as to avoid absurd results. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statutes that a construction should not be put on a statutory provision which would lead to manifest absurdity, futility, palpable injustice and absurd inconvenience or anomaly.”
In the understanding of this Court, qualitative teaching experience of (08) years is the purport of the Regulation and the insistence on emoluments akin to those of the Assistant Professor/Associate Professor is only to authenticate the claims of the aspirants about eight (08) years of teaching experience for the post and to avoid unverifiable claims of teaching experience, given the paucity of time and extremely limited resources of a State University at the time of recruitment. This is so, as at the time of recruitment, the universities are inundated with applications from the aspirants and the University does not have the wherewithal of the State to gather the required information on all the applications.
However, the emoluments cannot be said to be an absolute determining factor over experience of teaching, where there is no whiff of a doubt to the qualitative minimum teaching experience in the cadre or equivalent cadre of Assistant Professor, like in the case of non-regular teaching faculty in the Universities and Government lecturers in Government colleges teaching corresponding courses.
The next question would be, whether the applications of Petitioners could be rejected for want of emoluments when they are discharging teaching duties in the State Universities on a non-regular basis for over 10-15 years.
As observed above, the applications of the Petitioners could not be rejected for want of emoluments as there is no dispute to the qualitative minimum teaching experience of (08) years. Another aspect to be noted in these cases is that Clause 13 of the Regulation mandates that all contract employees are entitled to be paid emoluments equal to those of regularly appointed Assistant Professors in the respective Universities. Clause 13 of the Regulations is extracted below:
“13.0 Appointments on Contract Basis;
The teachers should be appointed on contract basis only when it is absolutely necessary and when the student teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid-down norms. In any case, the number of such appointments should not exceed 10% of the total number of faculty positions in a College/University. The qualifications and selection procedure for appointing them should be the same as those applicable to a regularly-appointed teacher. The fixed emoluments paid to such contract teachers should not be less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. Such appointments should not be made initially for more than one academic session, and the performance of any such entrant teacher should be reviewed for academic performance before reappointing him/her on contract basis for another session. Such appointments on contract basis may also be resorted to when absolutely necessary to fill vacancies arising due to maternity leave, child-care leave, etc.”
Though the Regulation 13 mentions that the same applies to persons appointed on contract basis, the same is loosely worded and should be construed as covering all the persons working in the teaching faculty on a non-regular basis. The above mandates that the emoluments paid to such contract teachers be not less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor and the deviation in payment cannot be to the disadvantage of the Petitioners working in the very University. It is visualisable that the Petitioners and persons similarly placed would not have claimed emoluments as per Regulation 13 as they would have apprehended removal from service under the pretext of annual review as provided under the very same regulation. Apart from the above, in a society as ours, inundated with academically qualified, the unemployed among them, hardly have any bargaining capability with the employer in asking for emoluments akin to those of Assistant Professor. There is hardly any level playing field for the aspirants saddled with responsibilities on account of passage of time.
The Universities, having not paid the emoluments as those of Assistant Professor to the Petitioners, could not have taken advantage of their wrong and reject the applications of the Petitioners. The latin maxim “nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria” meaning that no person can take advantage of his own wrong is a recognised as a fundamental legal principle in Brooms Legal maxims and the same is apt, in the context of this case. The observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar2, would be relevant;
“14.In this connection, our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the appellant to a decision of this Court in Mrutunjay Pani v. Narmada Bala Sasmal wherein it was held by this Court that where an obligation is cast on a party and he commits a breach of such obligation, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of such situation. This is based on the Latin maxim commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet (no party can take undue advantage of his own wrong).
15.In Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav the accused army personnel himself was responsible for delay as he escaped from detention. Then he raised an objection against initiation of proceedings on the ground that such proceedings ought to have been initiated within six months under the Army Act, 1950. Referring to the above maxim, this Court held that the accused could not take undue advantage of his own wrong. Considering the relevant provisions of the Act, the Court held that presence of the accused was an essential condition for the commencement of trial and when the accused did not make himself available, he could not be allowed to raise a contention that proceedings were time-barred. This Court (at SCC p. 142, para 28) referred to Broom‟s Legal Maxims (10th Edn.), p. 191 wherein it was stated:
“It is a maxim of law, recognised and established, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong; and this maxim, which is based on elementary principles, is fully recognised in courts of law and of equity, and, indeed, admits of illustration from every branch of legal procedure.”
16.It is settled principle of law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has occasioned. To put it differently, “a wrongdoer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong”.
In the light of the above, the applications of the Petitioners could not have been rejected taking into consideration the interpretation of Regulation 10(f)(iii) as mentioned above as there is no dispute to their teaching experience and the University having not paid the emoluments as prescribed in Regulation 13, could not take advantage of the same and reject the applications.
In a slight detour, it would be appropriate to refer to the concern of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors v. State of Gujarat3, over low salaries paid to the teaching staff. The paragraphs 4 and 5 are extracted below;
“4.Academicians, lecturers and professors are the intellectual backbone of any nation, as they dedicate their lives to shaping the minds and character of future generations. Their work goes far beyond delivering lessons—it involves mentoring, guiding, research, nurturing critical thinking, and instilling values that contribute to the progress of society. However, in many contexts, the compensation and recognition extended to them do not truly reflect the significance of their contribution. When educators are not treated with dignity or offered respectable emoluments, it diminishes the value a country places on knowledge and undermines the motivation of those entrusted with building its intellectual capital. By ensuring fair remuneration and dignified treatment, we affirm the importance of their role and reinforce the nation‟s commitment to quality education, innovation, and a brighter future for its youth.
5.It is just not enough to keep reciting gurubramha gururvishnu gurdevo maheshwarah at public functions. If we believe in this declaration, it must be reflected in the way the nation treats its teachers.”
Eventually, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted minimum pay scale admissible to the Assistant Professors from three (3) years prior to the filing of the writ petition with interest @ 8%.
Coming back, a lot of emphasis was made on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allahabad University v. Geethanjali Tiwari4 to the effect that Regulation 10(f)(iii) is absolute. It is relevant to note that in the batch of cases, the aspirants had applied for the post of Assistant Professor by quoting their teaching experience in private colleges and as guest lecturers for some time. The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions and, questioning the same, Writ Appeals were filed. During the pendency of Writ Appeals, a Writ Petition was also filed questioning the vires of Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the Regulations.
The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, after noting that the eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Professor under Regulation 4 of the UGC Regulations did not mandate any teaching experience for appointment, opined that Regulation 10, which speaks of the manner of counting of past service, has no application to the appointment of Assistant Professor and the reference to Assistant Professor in the Regulation is only a surplusage. The Division Bench also held that Table 3-A of the Regulations, which provides for two marks for each year of teaching experience, is not defined and therefore, it was held that teaching experience as a full-time teacher in a recognised University or its affiliated or constituent colleges with requisite qualification would be sufficient to be entitled to two marks for each year. In that view, the Division Bench opined that there was no reason to go into the question of the validity of Regulation 10(f)(iii) (Geetanjali Tiwari v. Union of India5).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-cited judgment did not agree to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court and had set-aside the same. The above judgment was in the context of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor and the applicability of Regulation 10 to the post of Assistant Professor and does not apply to the facts of these cases. In the present batch of cases, the appointment is sought to the post of “Associate Professor” and the question is understanding the purport and rationale of Regulation 10(f)(iii) and the non-adherence to Regulation 13 vis-a-vis contractual teaching faculty in the Universities.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
The applications of the Petitioners for the post of Associate Professor shall be re-examined by the Respondent-Universities without insisting on the emoluments as provided in Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.