Specific UGC qualifications for Business Administration faculty prevail over general university eligibility criteria.

The University of Lucknow advertised Associate Professor posts in its Department of Business Administration in August 2015. Both petitioners applied, were selected, and joined in February 2016.

Dr. Ritu Narang, another applicant, challenged their appointments before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. She argued, among other things, that the petitioners had not produced evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students—a requirement under the general eligibility criteria applicable to the Faculty of Commerce.

The Chancellor rejected her objection to the Selection Committee’s composition but cancelled the appointments on the ground that the petitioners had not established that qualification. The petitioners challenged that order.

1. Whether the qualifications in Statute 11.03.04(G), concerning Management/Business Administration, governed appointments to the Department of Business Administration even though it then fell within the Faculty of Commerce.

2. Whether the Chancellor was justified in cancelling the appointments because the petitioners had not submitted evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students, when the Selection Committee proceeded under Statute 11.03.04(G).

Section 50(6) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 enabled amendment of the University’s First Statutes, and the University incorporated the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010, effective from 3 December 2013.

Regulation 4.4.5, incorporated as Statute 11.03.04(G), prescribes qualifications for teaching faculty in Management/Business Administration.

The Court applied the principle that a specific provision governing a discipline prevails over general eligibility criteria; the general criteria in Statute 11.03.01, including evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students, could not displace the specific requirements applicable to Management/Business Administration.

Section 68 provided the Chancellor’s authority invoked to review the matter.

The Court treated the advertised posts as teaching positions in Business Administration, bringing them within the subject-specific qualifications in Regulation 4.4.5 and Statute 11.03.04(G), regardless of the department’s placement within the Faculty of Commerce at the time.

It held that the Chancellor’s reliance on the general criteria in Statute 11.03.01 failed to account for the amended First Statutes and the specific eligibility regime.

The University had also maintained before the Chancellor that the Selection Committee applied Statute 11.03.04(G); the Court considered it impermissible for the University to take a contrary position before the Court.

Further, the Committee had not required the petitioners to submit evidence of doctoral supervision, and the petitioners asserted that they possessed the relevant qualification.

It quashed the Chancellor’s order dated 27 November 2017, held the petitioners’ selections proper, and allowed both writ petitions, entitling the petitioners to consequential benefits.

No order as to costs was made.