SINOJIYA ALPESH DEVSIBHAI vs STATE OF GUJARAT

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
Reserved On : 16/07/2026
Pronounced On : 24/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9212 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9115 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9217 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9221 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9300 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9303 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9454 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SINOJIYA ALPESH DEVSIBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEET A SHAH(9933) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR TARAK DAMANI for the Respondent(s) No. 3 in SCA/9217/2026
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

CAV JUDGMENT
1. Since all these petitions arise out of
Page 1 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
an identical factual matrix and involve a common
issue concerning the non-allotment of marks
towards past teaching experience in the process
of recruitment to the post of Assistant
Professor, they were heard analogously and are
being disposed of by this common judgment,
treating Special Civil Application No.9212 of
2026 as the lead matter.
2. By way of the present petition, the
petitioner has invoked the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, calling in question
the action of the respondent University in
denying marks towards past teaching experience
while evaluating the petitioner’s candidature
pursuant to the advertisement dated 12th January,
2026 for recruitment to the post of Assistant
Professor (General – Unreserved Category).
3. The relevant facts giving rise to the
present petition, stated in brief, are as under:
3.1 The petitioner possesses the academic
qualifications of B.A. (Economics), M.A.
(Economics), B.Ed. (Education), M.Ed.
(Education), M.A. (Education), and has also been
awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
(Ph.D.).
Page 2 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
3.2 The petitioner came to be appointed as
an Assistant Professor in Takshshila B.Ed.
College, Halvad, a self-financed institution
managed by Chanakya Education & Charitable Trust
and affiliated with Saurashtra University, on a
permanent basis vide appointment order dated 30th
April, 2016. As stipulated in the appointment
order, the pay scale, allowances and other
service benefits were governed by the U.G.C.
norms applicable to the post of Assistant
Professor.
3.3 Pursuant to the aforesaid appointment,
Saurashtra University, by order dated 16th June,
2016, granted conditional approval to the
petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Professor.
Subsequently, vide order dated 28th November,
2019, the University accorded final approval to
the petitioner’s appointment with effect from 6th
December, 2017, recognizing him as a full-time
Assistant Professor.
3.4 It is the case of the petitioner that,
th
thereafter, on 10 July, 2025, he was selected
and appointed on a permanent basis to the post of
Principal of Takshshila B.Ed. College. The said
appointment was made after following the
selection procedure prescribed under the
Page 3 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
regulations framed by the N.C.T.E. and the
U.G.C., and the pay scale and allowances attached
to the said post were fixed in accordance with
the U.G.C. norms applicable to the post of
Principal. Saurashtra University, vide its order
th
dated 28 August, 2025, granted approval to the
petitioner’s appointment as Principal after being
satisfied that the same was in conformity with
the prevailing recruitment regulations.
3.5 Thereafter, the respondent University
issued Employment Notification
th
No.MKBU/ESTA/ADV/954/2025 dated 27 December,
2025 (Advertisement No.T07-12/2025), inviting
applications, inter alia, for appointment to the
post of Assistant Professor in the subject of
Education under the General and S.E.B.C.
categories.
3.6 Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement,
the petitioner submitted his online application
th
bearing Form No.CUT-1014 on 12 January, 2026 for
appointment to the post of Assistant Professor
(Education) under the General (Unreserved)
Category, together with all requisite
testimonials and supporting documents.
3.7 The petitioner thereafter received an
rd
email dated 23 May, 2026 from the Scrutiny
Page 4 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
Committee of the respondent University
communicating the marks awarded upon scrutiny and
evaluation of his application. Upon perusal
thereof, the petitioner came to know that no
marks had been awarded towards his past teaching
experience on the ground that he was allegedly
not drawing salary in accordance with the
provisions of the UGC Regulations on Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and
Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges
and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in
Higher Education, 2018, particularly Regulation
10 thereof.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the aforesaid, petitioner has approached this
Court for the appropriate writ, order or
direction in the interest of justice.
5. Heard Learned Advocate Mr.Meet Shah for
the petitioner, learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi for respondent Nos.1 and
2, Learned Advocate Mr.Hriday Buch and Learned
Advocate Mr.Tarak Damani for respondent No.3 in
respective petitions, in all the petitions.
6. Since the issue involved in the present
petitions lies in the narrow compass but having
some significance, with the request and consent
Page 5 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
of Learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties, the petitions are taken up for final
hearing at the admission stage.
7. Learned Advocate Mr.Meet Shah appearing
for the petitioners in all the petitions, while
assailing the action of the respondent
University, has advanced the following
submissions:
7.1 It is submitted that the petitioners
were initially appointed as Assistant Professors
and, thereafter, as Principals after undergoing
the prescribed recruitment process in accordance
with the Regulations framed by the N.C.T.E. and
the UGC Regulations, 2018. It is further
submitted that both the appointments had received
due approval and recognition from the concerned
statutory University. In such circumstances, the
refusal to treat the petitioners’ past service
rendered as Assistant Professors and Principals
as valid teaching experience is wholly arbitrary,
contrary to law and, therefore, deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
7.2 It is submitted that the impugned action
is ex facie contrary to Regulation 10 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018, which governs the counting of
past teaching experience for the purpose of
Page 6 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
direct recruitment. According to the learned
counsel, the controversy is squarely governed by
Regulation 10(b), which is post-centric in
nature. It is contended that once the earlier
post held by a candidate is the same or of an
equivalent grade, the first limb of Regulation
10(b) mandates counting of such past teaching
experience and consequential award of marks. It
is submitted that, admittedly, the petitioners
had served as Assistant Professors and Principals
and, therefore, the Scrutiny Committee was under
a statutory obligation to award marks towards
such past teaching experience in terms of
Regulation 10(b).
7.3 It is further submitted that Regulation
10(b) does not prescribe that a candidate must
have been drawing salary strictly in accordance
with the UGC pay scales. The Regulation merely
refers to the revised pay scale and, therefore,
the fact that the petitioners were paid a fixed
salary by private self-financed institutions,
despite their appointments, approvals and
recognitions being in conformity with the
University and UGC norms, cannot be treated as a
disqualifying factor for the purpose of reckoning
past teaching experience. It is submitted that
the petitioners had continuously discharged
Page 7 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
duties as Assistant Professors and Principals
from the year 2016 to 2025 and, merely because
they were paid a fixed salary, their experience
acquired while serving as regular employees
cannot be ignored or discarded.
7.4 It is submitted that a plain reading of
Regulation 10 makes it evident that, while
counting the past teaching experience of a
candidate who was appointed on a regular and
permanent basis as an Assistant Professor, the
relevant consideration is the equivalence of the
grade of the post and not the quantum of salary
drawn by such candidate, unlike cases involving
ad hoc, temporary or contractual appointments. It
is contended that, for determining the experience
of a regular appointee, the pay scale bears no
rational nexus. The requirement relating to pay
scale assumes relevance only in cases falling
under Regulation 10(f)(iii), namely where the
appointment is on an ad hoc, temporary or
contractual basis. Thus, the criterion relating
to pay scale or salary constitutes an additional
requirement only for candidates serving in such
capacities. Since the petitioners were regular
and permanent appointees to the post of Assistant
Professor, their past teaching experience was
required to be considered under Regulation 10(b),
Page 8 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
particularly when the posts held by them were of
an equivalent grade.
7.5 It is further submitted that the
respondent University has been treating the
teaching experience acquired by Assistant
Professors and Principals serving in Government
and grant-in-aid institutions, though appointed
on fixed pay, as valid experience, whereas the
teaching experience of the petitioners, who were
appointed on a regular and permanent basis in
self-financed institutions but were paid a fixed
salary, has not been accorded similar treatment.
Such differential treatment, it is submitted,
amounts to hostile discrimination and is
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
7.6 It is further submitted that the
petitioners were appointed as Assistant
Professors and Principals only after undergoing
the prescribed selection process in accordance
with the norms framed by the N.C.T.E. and the
UGC. During the course of their service, they
discharged various academic, administrative and
institutional responsibilities, including
functioning as Ph.D. guides, participating in the
activities of the Board of Studies and performing
Page 9 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
other academic functions assigned by the
concerned University. It is, therefore, contended
that the petitioners’ teaching experience ought
to be assessed on the basis of their
qualifications, the nature of the posts held and
the academic duties actually discharged, and not
with reference to the salary paid to them by the
private self-financed institutions. It is
submitted that the respondent University, by
rejecting the petitioners’ past teaching
experience solely on the ground of the salary
drawn, has frustrated the very object and purpose
underlying Regulation 10, which seeks to
recognize and count the teaching experience of
all eligible candidates, irrespective of whether
they served in Government or non-Government
institutions, subject to fulfilment of the
prescribed qualifications.
7.7 By making above submissions, learned
advocate for the petitioner requested this Court
to allow the petitions as prayed for.
8. Per contra , learned Advocate Mr. Hriday
Buch appearing for the respondent University,
while supporting the impugned action, has
advanced the following submissions:
8.1 At the outset, it is submitted that the
Page 10 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
action of the respondent University in not
awarding marks towards the petitioners’ past
teaching experience is fully in consonance with
the provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2018. It
is, therefore, submitted that the present
petitions, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, are devoid of merits and
do not warrant any interference by this Court.
8.2 It is submitted that the benefit of
counting past teaching experience for the purpose
of direct recruitment under Regulation 10 is
available only to those candidates who are in
regular service, possess the prescribed essential
qualifications, have been appointed after
undergoing the due selection process and are
drawing salary in the equivalent grade or pay
scale. It is contended that although the
petitioners were appointed on a regular basis,
they were admittedly drawing fixed salary and,
therefore, failed to satisfy the requirement
relating to the equivalent pay scale.
Consequently, their past teaching experience was
rightly not taken into consideration.
8.3 It is further submitted that, for
determining whether a candidate satisfies the
requirements of Regulation 10, the relevant
Page 11 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
consideration is the grade or pay scale attached
to the post. Since the petitioners were drawing a
fixed salary, they do not satisfy the
requirements of Regulation 10(b). It is further
contended that, having regard to the provisions
of Regulation 10(f)(iii), the fixed salary drawn
by the petitioners was admittedly lower than the
gross monthly emoluments payable to a regularly
appointed Assistant Professor and, therefore, the
respondent University has rightly declined to
count their past teaching experience.
8.4 It is submitted that Regulation 10
contemplates three distinct categories of
candidates, namely: (i) candidates appointed on a
regular post; (ii) candidates appointed on a
regular post and drawing the prescribed or
equivalent pay scale; and (iii) candidates
appointed on an ad hoc, temporary or contractual
basis, provided they are drawing fixed
remuneration not less than the total monthly
emoluments payable to a regularly appointed
Assistant Professor. It is, therefore, contended
that although the petitioners were appointed on a
regular basis, since they were drawing a fixed
salary which was lower than the gross monthly
emoluments of a regularly appointed Assistant
Professor, their case does not satisfy the
Page 12 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
requirements of Regulation 10 and, consequently,
their past teaching experience has rightly not
been counted.
8.5 Lastly, it is submitted that a
harmonious reading of Regulation 10 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018 makes it evident that a
candidate drawing the prescribed pay scale would
be governed by Regulation 10(b), whereas a
candidate serving on an ad hoc, temporary or
contractual basis would fall within the ambit of
Regulation 10(f)(iii), provided such candidate is
drawing remuneration not less than the total
monthly emoluments payable to a regularly
appointed Assistant Professor. In the present
case, since the petitioners were neither drawing
the prescribed pay scale nor receiving fixed
remuneration equivalent to the gross monthly
emoluments of a regularly appointed Assistant
Professor, their past teaching experience cannot
be counted for the purpose of direct recruitment.
The petitions, therefore, deserve to be
dismissed.
8.6 To substantiate the aforesaid
contentions, Learned Advocate relied on the
decision of the Apex Court in case of Allahabad
University v. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) [(2024)
Page 13 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
20 SCC 23].
8.7 By making above submissions, Learned
Advocate Mr.Hriday Buch requested this Court to
dismiss the petitions.
9. Learned Advocate Mr.Tarak Damani adopted
the submissions canvassed by Learned Advocate
Mr.Hriday Buch and reiterated that the case of
the petitioner was rightly not considered by true
and correct interpretation of Regulation 10 and
thereby, the petitions deserve no consideration.
10. Heard Learned Advocates appearing for
the respective parties and have gone through the
materials produced on record. No other and/or
further submissions have been canvassed by
Learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties except mentioned hereinabove.
11. Having considered the rival submissions
and the material available on record, the
principal question that arises for determination
is whether Regulation 10 of the UGC Regulations,
2018 permits the respondent University to deny
the benefit of counting past teaching experience
of a candidate who was regularly appointed to an
equivalent teaching post in a recognized private
self-financed institution, solely on the ground
Page 14 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
that such candidate was paid a fixed salary
instead of the prescribed UGC pay scale?
12. So as to understand the aforesaid
question, it is relevant to understand the
provisions of Regulation 10 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018, which can be extracted 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 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
Page 15 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
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; and
(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.”
13. A plain and meaningful reading of
Regulation 10, as a whole, would indicate that
Page 16 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
the provision is beneficial in nature and has
been enacted with an inclusive approach. The
underlying legislative intent appears to be to
ensure that genuine teaching and research
experience acquired by an academician is not
excluded merely because such experience was
gained outside a Government institution or under
a different management. The Regulation seeks to
recognize past academic experience for the
purpose of direct recruitment as well as
promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme,
subject to fulfillment of the conditions
expressly stipulated therein.
13.1 The scheme of Regulation 10, on a
conjoint reading of its various clauses,
contemplates two distinct classes of previous
service for the purpose of counting past
experience, namely: (i) previous regular service;
and (ii) previous ad hoc, temporary or
contractual service. Irrespective of the category
into which a candidate falls, the foundational
requirement prescribed under Regulation 10(a) is
that the essential qualifications for the post
previously held should not be lower than those
prescribed by the UGC for the corresponding post
of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or
Professor. The requirement of possessing the
Page 17 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
prescribed UGC qualifications, therefore,
constitutes the primary and indispensable
condition applicable uniformly to both categories
of candidates.
13.2 Once the requirement relating to
qualifications is satisfied, the next stage of
inquiry is to ascertain the nature of the
previous appointment. Insofar as a candidate who
was appointed on a regular basis is concerned,
the relevant provision is Regulation 10(b). The
emphasis under the said clause is on the nature
and status of the post previously held. If the
candidate was holding a post equivalent in grade
to that of an Assistant Professor, Associate
Professor or Professor, or a post carrying the
corresponding pre-revised scale of pay, and such
appointment was made through the prescribed
selection procedure as contemplated under
Regulation 10(d), the previous service is liable
to be counted. Thus, for a regular appointee, the
conditions which assume significance are: (i)
possession of the prescribed UGC qualifications;
(ii) appointment through a duly prescribed
selection process; and (iii) holding a post of an
equivalent grade or corresponding pre-revised
scale of pay. Significantly, Regulation 10(b)
does not stipulate, in express terms, that the
Page 18 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
incumbent must have actually drawn salary in
accordance with the UGC pay scales. The emphasis
of the provision is on the equivalence of the
post and the legality of the appointment, rather
than the actual salary received by the incumbent.
13.3 The position, however, stands on a
different footing in respect of candidates who
had rendered service on an ad hoc, temporary or
contractual basis. Such category is specifically
governed by Regulation 10(f). In addition to
satisfying the requirements regarding
qualifications and appointment through a duly
constituted Selection Committee, Regulation 10(f)
(iii) incorporates an additional condition that
the incumbent should have been drawing total
gross emoluments not less than the monthly gross
salary payable to a regularly appointed Assistant
Professor, Associate Professor or Professor, as
the case may be. Thus, the criterion relating to
salary has been consciously introduced only in
respect of ad hoc, temporary or contractual
appointments. No corresponding stipulation has
been incorporated while prescribing the
conditions applicable to regular appointments
under Regulation 10(b).
13.4 Viewed from the aforesaid perspective,
Page 19 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
Regulation 10 draws a clear distinction between
regular appointments governed by Regulation 10(b)
and ad hoc, temporary or contractual appointments
governed by Regulation 10(f). While the latter
category is subjected to an additional financial
benchmark relating to monthly emoluments, no such
requirement has been engrafted in Regulation
10(b). Consequently, in the case of a regular
appointee, once the incumbent satisfies the
prescribed UGC qualifications, has been appointed
through the prescribed selection procedure and
has held a post of an equivalent grade or
corresponding pre-revised scale of pay, the past
teaching experience cannot ordinarily be excluded
merely on the ground that the incumbent was paid
a fixed salary instead of the UGC pay scale. Any
contrary interpretation would amount to importing
into Regulation 10(b) a condition which the
framers of the Regulations have consciously
incorporated only in Regulation 10(f)(iii), a
course of interpretation which is impermissible
in law.
14. Applying the aforesaid interpretation of
Regulation 10 to the facts of the present case,
it is not in dispute that the petitioner
possessed the educational qualifications
prescribed under the UGC Regulations and came to
Page 20 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
be appointed on a regular basis after undergoing
the prescribed selection process. It is equally
undisputed that the petitioner discharged his
duties as an Assistant Professor and, thereafter,
as a Principal, and that both the appointments
were duly recognized and approved by the
concerned statutory University. In such
circumstances, this Court is of the considered
view that the petitioner’s claim for counting
past teaching experience falls squarely within
the ambit of Regulation 10(b). Consequently, his
case could not have been rejected by importing
the conditions contained in Regulation 10(f)
(iii), which, by its very language, is applicable
exclusively to candidates who had rendered
service on an ad hoc, temporary or contractual
basis.
The petitioner having satisfied the
prescribed UGC qualifications, having been
appointed through a duly constituted selection
process and having served against a regular post
recognized by the University, cannot be denied
the benefit of counting his past teaching
experience merely because the private self-
financed institution paid him a fixed salary.
Such payment of fixed remuneration, if contrary
to the applicable UGC norms, is an act
Page 21 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
attributable to the employer and cannot be
permitted to operate to the detriment of the
petitioner.
It also deserves to be noticed that, as
per the terms of the appointment, the petitioner
was entitled to the pay scale prescribed under
the UGC norms and his appointment had been duly
recognized by the University. If, despite such
entitlement, the management failed to extend the
prescribed pay scale and the petitioner
nevertheless continued to discharge all academic
and administrative responsibilities attached to
the post, denial of the benefit of counting such
service solely on the ground of the salary
actually paid would visit the petitioner with a
double disadvantage. First, he was deprived of
the salary to which he was otherwise entitled
under the applicable norms and, secondly, he is
sought to be deprived of the benefit of counting
the very service rendered by him for the purpose
of direct recruitment. Such a consequence neither
advances the object of Regulation 10 nor can it
be said to be in consonance with its underlying
legislative intent.
14.1 In view of the aforesaid discussion,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the
Page 22 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
petitioner, having possessed the requisite
qualifications prescribed under the UGC
Regulations, having been regularly appointed
after following the prescribed selection
procedure and his appointment having been duly
recognized by the statutory University, cannot be
denied the benefits flowing from Regulation 10
merely on the ground that he was paid a fixed
salary instead of the prescribed UGC pay scale.
15. Insofar as the reliance placed by
learned Advocate Mr. Buch on the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allahabad University v.
Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) (supra) is concerned,
this Court is of the considered view that the
said decision is clearly distinguishable on facts
and, therefore, does not advance the case of the
respondent University.
In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the candidate seeking appointment to the
post of Assistant Professor in Allahabad
University had, in her pleadings, specifically
averred that she had worked as a contractual
faculty during the period from October, 2004 to
March, 2010 on a consolidated honorarium of
Rs.5,000/- per month. Thereafter, for the period
from 2016 to 2021, she had served as a guest
Page 23 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
faculty in different colleges on varying
honoraria ranging from Rs.25,000/- to
Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the previous service rendered
by the candidate before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
was admittedly in the capacity of a contractual
and guest faculty member and, therefore, the
controversy before the Apex Court squarely fell
within the ambit of Regulation 10(f),
particularly Regulation 10(f)(iii), of the UGC
Regulations, 2018.
The factual matrix of the present case
stands on an entirely different footing. Here,
the petitioner was appointed on a regular basis
after undergoing the prescribed selection
process, possessed the requisite qualifications
under the UGC Regulations and his appointment was
duly approved and recognized by the statutory
University. The mere fact that the petitioner was
paid a fixed salary by the private self-financed
institution cannot, by itself, justify treating
his case as one governed by Regulation 10(f)
(iii), which is specifically intended to regulate
the counting of service rendered by ad hoc,
temporary or contractual appointees.
As already held hereinabove, the
petitioner’s case is governed by Regulation
10(b). Once an incumbent holds a post equivalent
Page 24 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
in grade to that of an Assistant Professor or a
post carrying the corresponding pre-revised scale
of pay, and satisfies the other conditions
prescribed under Regulation 10, the past teaching
experience is liable to be counted. The
requirement regarding parity of emoluments, which
has been specifically incorporated in Regulation
10(f)(iii), cannot be imported into Regulation
10(b) by way of interpretation. Consequently, the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Allahabad University v. Geetanjali Tiwari
(Pandey) (supra) , having been rendered in the
context of a candidate admittedly serving as a
contractual and guest faculty member, has no
application to the facts of the present case.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion and
for the reasons recorded hereinabove, all the
present petitions succeed and are accordingly
allowed. The respondent authorities are directed
to treat the petitioners in the respective
petitions as eligible for the benefit of
Regulation 10(b) of the UGC Regulations, 2018 for
the purpose of counting their past teaching
experience in direct recruitment. The respondent
authorities shall accordingly re-evaluate the
petitioners’ candidature by awarding appropriate
marks towards their past teaching experience, in
Page 25 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026

C/SCA/9212/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
accordance with law, and revise the merit
particulars consequentially.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
FURTHER ORDER
After the pronouncement of the judgment,
Learned Advocate Mr.Hriday Buch and Learned
Advocate Mr.Tarak Damani for respondent No.3 in
the respective petitions, have requested for stay
of the judgment for a period of three weeks so as
to enable respondent No.3 to challenge the same
in a higher forum.
Considering the question involved and in
view of the statement being made that the
selection process would not be completed, stay,
as prayed for, is granted for three weeks from
today.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
ANUP
Page 26 of 26
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:19 IST 2026