Prior adoption of UGC norms makes NET/SLET/PhD qualification mandatory; past increments and confirmation do not waive it.

The appellants were appointed as lecturers at Maibang Degree College during 2000–2001 on a temporary basis and consolidated remuneration, with their continuance subject to satisfactory performance.

The college was subsequently brought under the deficit grant-in-aid system with effect from 01.04.2001, and provisional approval of the lecturers’ appointments was made subject to fulfilment of UGC conditions for higher scales.

Although the appellants’ services were later confirmed and they received annual increments and, in some cases, Senior Scale placement, the authorities issued a communication dated 29.03.2016 directing maintenance of status quo regarding increments and review of Senior Scale placement on the ground that the appellants lacked the prescribed qualifications.

Their writ petitions challenging the Office Memorandum dated 10.07.2015 and consequential action were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 12.05.2023. The present intra-court appeals challenged that decision.

Whether the requirement to acquire NET/SLET/Ph.D. qualifications was introduced retrospectively through the subsequent Office Memoranda, or whether it already governed the appellants’ appointments and service benefits?

Whether confirmation of service, release of annual increments and grant of Senior Scale placement created an enforceable right to continue receiving those benefits despite non-compliance with the prescribed UGC qualifications?

Whether the appellants were entitled to judicial interference with the impugned communications and, alternatively, to a reasonable opportunity to acquire the prescribed qualifications?

The Court applied the UGC qualification norms as adopted and implemented by the State Government for lecturers in non-government deficit colleges, including the requirement of NET/SLET/Ph.D. for eligibility for relevant service and financial benefits.

The conditions attached to the 29.09.2001 approval under the deficit grant-in-aid system were treated as binding conditions governing entitlement to higher scales.

The Court held that subsequent release of increments, confirmation of service or grant of Senior Scale, absent a conscious relaxation or exemption by the competent authority, could not waive the governing qualification requirement or create an estoppel against the State.

It further applied the principle that continuance or confirmation in service is distinct from eligibility for financial progression under an applicable regulatory scheme.

Equitable considerations may justify consideration of reasonable time to acquire the qualification, but cannot confer a legal right contrary to the governing policy or authorise impermissible relaxation.

The Court found that the qualification requirement pre-dated the appellants’ appointments: the Government communication dated 01.06.2000 required lecturers appointed after implementation of the policy to acquire NET/SLET/Ph.D., and the appellants were appointed thereafter.

Their subsequent acceptance of approval under the deficit system, which expressly linked higher-scale entitlement to UGC conditions, further bound them to that requirement.

The 2003 college communication corroborated the contemporaneous understanding that the appellants were not exempt from the qualification requirement.

Accordingly, the 2004 and 2015 Office Memoranda were viewed as regulating or reiterating the consequences of an existing policy rather than imposing a new retrospective condition.

The Court rejected reliance on past administrative conduct because no conscious relaxation had been shown. Erroneous or delayed release of increments and confirmation of service could not override the applicable norms or establish an enforceable entitlement to financial progression.

Nevertheless, because the appellants had served for over two decades with official approval and had received various benefits, the Court considered it equitable to permit the Government to examine whether a reasonable period could be granted for acquiring the qualification, subject to the applicable UGC and governmental framework.

However, if the appellants submitted individual representations within four weeks, the competent authorities were directed to consider them objectively and issue reasoned decisions within six weeks thereafter on whether a reasonable period could lawfully be granted to acquire the qualifications.

This equitable direction was expressly stated not to recognise any legal right or require relaxation beyond what was permissible under the applicable statutory, regulatory or governmental framework.