Past Regular Teaching Experience in Private Institutions Counts Toward Recruitment Regardless of Actual Salary Drawn

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors and subsequently as Principals in self-financed B.Ed. colleges affiliated with Saurashtra University between 2016 and 2025

Their appointments were made following NCTE and UGC norms and received formal approval from the University

In 2026, the petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Education) under Advertisement No. T07-12/2025 issued by Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

The Scrutiny Committee of the respondent University denied them marks for past teaching experience, asserting that since they were paid a fixed salary by private institutions rather than the full UGC pay scale, they did not satisfy Regulation 10 of the UGC Regulations, 2018

Whether the respondent University was legally justified under Regulation 10 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, in denying marks for past teaching experience to regularly appointed candidates solely because they received a fixed salary instead of a prescribed pay scale

Regulation 10 of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018

The core doctrine distinguishes between "previous regular service" under Regulation 10(b)—which requires an equivalent grade/post and prescribed selection procedure—and "Ad-hoc/Temporary/Contractual service" under Regulation 10(f)(iii), which specifically mandates that gross monthly emoluments must not be lower than those of a regular teacher

The principle of statutory interpretation that conditions expressed in one clause (10(f)) cannot be imported into another (10(b)) where the drafters chose to omit them

The precedent Allahabad University v. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) [(2024) 20 SCC 23] was distinguished as applicable only to contractual/guest faculty

The Court reasoned that Regulation 10 is beneficial and inclusive, aiming to recognize genuine academic experience regardless of the management type (private or government)

It observed that Regulation 10(b) is "post-centric," focusing on whether the candidate held an equivalent grade and was appointed via a lawful selection process

Unlike Regulation 10(f)(iii), Regulation 10(b) does not explicitly require the actual receipt of the full UGC pay scale as a condition for regular appointees

Since the petitioners held regular, approved posts and possessed UGC-prescribed qualifications, the University’s focus on the "quantum of salary" was misplaced

The Court found that penalizing a teacher for the employer's failure to pay the full scale—despite regular appointment—would result in a "double disadvantage" that frustrates the intent of the recruitment rules

The petitions were allowed, and the Court directed the respondent University to re-evaluate the candidatures by awarding appropriate marks for past teaching experience and revising the merit list

The operation of the judgment was stayed for three weeks to allow the University to file an appeal