Uttarakhand High Court
7 June vs The Secretary on 17 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:5036-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Bench No. 198 of 2019
17 June, 2025
C.S.R. Linga Reddy --Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary, Government of India,
Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department
of Higher Education), Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi
And Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. I. D. Paliwal and Mr. Bhupendra Prasad, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 3 and 4.
Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for respondent no.5.
Mr. Nikhil Kushwaha, holding brief of Mr. Himanshu Pal, Advocate
for respondent no. 6.
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
(Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has
sought the following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the appointment order dated
31.10.2018 passed by the Registrar of the Gurukul
Kangri Vishwavidhyalaya Haridwar whereby the
Registrar has appointed respondent nos. 5 & 6 herein
to the post of Assistant Professor respectively in
Jyotish/Jyotir Vigyan and Vedic Karamkand and in
Sanskrit Department of the Gurukul Kangri
Vishwavidhyalaya Haridwar.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to declare the
result of the petitioner for the post of Assistant1
2025:UHC:5036-DB
Professor in the departments of Jyotish/Jyotir Vigyan
and Karamkand and also in Sanskrit department of
the aforesaid Vishwavidhyalaya.”
2. Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘University’) issued an advertisement
no. GVK/Estt./02/2016, inviting applications for various
teaching posts including the post of Assistant Professor,
Sanskrit and Assistant Professor, Jyotirvigyan & Vedic
Karmkand. Petitioner responded to the said
advertisement and applied for the aforesaid two posts.
Petitioner was called for interview, for both the posts,
which was held on 2.11.2017. Since petitioner was not
selected on any of the two posts, while respondent no.
5 and 6 were selected and appointed, therefore,
petitioner has challenged their appointment on the
following grounds:
(i) Respondent no. 5 had not qualified
National Eligibility Test (NET), yet he was appointed as
Assistant Professor, Jyotirvigyan & Vedic Karmkand,
even though his Ph.D. degree was not as per University
Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure
for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degree), Regulations 2009;
(ii) Ph.D. degree of respondent no. 5 was not
awarded in regular mode, as he was serving as part-
time teacher in Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya during
the period of Ph.D.;
(iii) Respondent no. 6 although had qualified
National Eligibility Test, however, his Ph.D. degree is
not as per University Grants Commission (Minimum
Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree),
Regulations 2009.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the University
2
2025:UHC:5036-DB
submits that challenge to the selection and
appointment of respondent no. 5 and 6 thrown by the
petitioner is without any substance. He submits that
respondent no. 5 and 6 were appointed on the
recommendation of a duly constituted selection
committee consisting of subject experts and the
assessment made by selection committee is not open
to judicial review. He further submits that selection was
made in a fair and transparent manner and there is no
allegation of nepotism or favoritism, in the writ petition,
against any Member of selection committee.
4. As regards eligibility of respondent no. 5 for
his appointment based on his Ph.D. degree, learned
Counsel for the University submits that respondent no.
5 was awarded Ph.D. degree by Sampuranand Sanskrit
University, Varanasi and the competent authority in the
said university has issued a certificate that the Ph.D.
degree awarded to respondent no. 5 fulfils all five
criteria indicated in UGC (Minimum qualifications for
appointment of teachers and other academic staff in
Universities and Colleges and measures for
maintenance of standards in higher education) (4th
Amendment) Regulations, 2016, notified on 11.7.2016.
Certificate issued by Sampuranand Sanskrit University
in favour of respondent no. 5 is enclosed with the
counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 5.
5. Regulation 3 of the 4th Amendment
Regulations 2016, notified on 11.7.2016, is extracted
below:
“3. The proviso prescribed under Regulation 3.3.1,
4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.2.2, 4.4.2.3, 4.5.3 and 4.6.3 in the3
2025:UHC:5036-DB
University Grants Commission (Minimum
qualifications for appointment of teachers and other
academic staff in Universities and Colleges and other
measures for the maintenance of standards in higher
education) (3th Amendment) Regulations, 2016
regarding exemption to the candidates registered for
Ph.D. programme prior to July 11, 2009 shall stand
amended and be read as under:-
“Provided further, the award of degree to candidates
registered for the M.Phil/Ph.D programme prior to
July 11, 2009, shall be governed by the provisions of
the then existing Ordinances/Bylaws/Regulations of
the Institutions awarding the degree and the Ph.D.
candidates shall be exempted from the requirement
of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of
Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in
Universities/Colleges/Institutions subject to the
fulfillment of the following conditions:-
a) Ph.D. degree of the candidate awarded in regular
mode only;
b) Evaluation of the Ph.D. thesis by at least two
external examiners;
c) Open Ph.D. viva voce of the candidate had been
conducted;
d) Candidate has published two research papers from
his/her Ph.D. work out of which at least one must be
in a referred journal;
e) Candidate has made at least two presentations in
conferences/seminars, based on his/her Ph.D. work.
(a) to (e) as above are to be certified by the Vice-
Chancellor / Pro-Vice-Chancellor / Dean (Academic
Affairs) / Dean (University instructions).”
6. Aforesaid provision contemplates issuance of
a certificate by the competent authority in the
University which awarded Ph.D. degree and the
competent authority in Sampuranand Sanskrit
University has issued such certificate in favour of
respondent no. 5 that it meets all five criteria laid down
in UGC Regulations, 2016, therefore the contention that
Ph.D. degree awarded to respondent no. 5 was not in
regular mode cannot be accepted. Since UGC
4
2025:UHC:5036-DB
Regulations, 2016 treats such certificate issued by the
University to be final, therefore, this Court cannot go
into the correctness of the certificate, especially when
there is no challenge to the correctness of the
certificate.
7. The advertisement whereby selection
process, in question, was initiated is enclosed as
Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Clause 4 of the General
Conditions and Information for Applicants, as
mentioned in the advertisement, is extracted below:-
“4. The candidates holding Ph.D. degree and require
exemption from NET/SET/SLET must produce
certificate from competent authority that Ph.D.
degree awarded to them is in compliance with
University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards
and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree),
Regulations 2009. Further, the award of degrees to
candidates registered for the M.Phil/Ph.D programme
prior to July 11, 2009, shall be governed by the
provisions of the then existing Ordinances/ By laws/
Regulations of the Institution awarding the degrees
and the Ph.D candidates shall be exempted from the
requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of
“NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of
Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in
Universities / Colleges /Institutions subject to the
fulfillment of the conditions prescribed by the UGC as
per3rd Amendment, Regulations 2016 of UGC
(Minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers
and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges
and measures for the maintenance of standards in
higher education) and amendments therein from
time to time.”
8. A careful perusal of Clause 4 of the General
Conditions reveals that NET/SLET/SET is one of the
essential qualifications of the eligibility, however the
said essential qualification is relaxable in favour of the
candidates holding Ph.D. degree, if they are able to
produce certificate from the competent authority that
Ph.D. degree awarded to them is in compliance with the
5
2025:UHC:5036-DB
University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and
Procedure for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degree)
Regulations, 2009. In Clause 4 of the advertisement,
reference is also made to UGC (Minimum qualifications
for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in
Universities and Colleges and measures for
maintenance of standards in higher education)
Regulations, 2016.
9. Since respondent no. 5 was issued a
certificate by competent authority in Sampuranand
Sanskrit University that his Ph.D. degree meets all five
criteria indicated in UGC Regulations, 2016, therefore,
challenge to the eligibility of respondent no. 5 for the
post of Assistant Professor is without any substance.
10. Petitioner has challenged selection and
appointment of respondent no. 5 and 6 on the ground
that Ph.D. degree possessed by them is not as per
University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and
Procedure for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degree)
Regulations, 2009, therefore they are ineligible for
appointment as Assistant Professor. This aspect was
considered and discussed by three-Judges Bench of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of University of
Kerala and others v. Marlin J.N. and another, reported
in (2022) 9 SCC 389, in which it was held that UGC
Regulations of 2016 are applicable retrospectively and
candidates with Ph.D. degree, which is not as per UGC
Regulations, 2009, cannot be treated as ineligible.
Relevant extract of the said judgment is extracted
below:-
6
2025:UHC:5036-DB
“9. Before this Court, it was argued on behalf of Dr Jayakumar as
well as the University that the former’s appointment was in
accordance with the extant law and regulations. It was
emphasised that the University adopted the 2009/10 UGCR only
with effect from 23-11-2013. In these circumstances, when the
advertisement was published, as also when Dr Jayakumar was
appointed in August 2012, he was fully qualified and entitled to
be appointed as Lecturer. It was further contended that prior to
Dr Jayakumar’s appointment, the UGC had, through its
Resolution dated 12-8-2010 passed in its 471st meeting, clarified
that 2009 PhD Regulations and 2009 UGCR were prospective in
nature, and not retrospective:
“[A]ll candidates who had either obtained PhD on or
before 31-12-2009 and such candidates who had
registered themselves for PhD degree on or before 31-12-
2009 were exempt from the requirement of NET.”
10. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the fourth
amendment placed the matter beyond any doubt because it
rendered eligible candidates who had acquired their PhD degree
before 11-7-2009. In this regard, great emphasis was placed on
the following:
“The proviso prescribed under Regulations 3.3.1, 4.4.1,
4.4.2, 4.4.2.2, 4.4.2.3, 4.5.3 and 4.6.3 in the University
Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for
Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in
Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) (3th
Amendment) Regulations, 2016 regarding exemption to
the candidates registered for PhD programme prior to 11-
7-2009 shall stand amended and be read as under:
Provided further, the award of degree to candidates
registered for the MPhil/PhD programme prior to 11-7-
2009, shall be governed by the provisions of the then
existing Ordinances/bye-laws/regulations of the
institutions awarding the degree and the PhD candidates
shall be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET
for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or
equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions
subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions:
(a) PhD degree of the candidate awarded in regular mode
only;
(b) Evaluation of the PhD thesis by at least two external
examiners;
(c) Open PhD viva voce of the candidate had been
conducted;
(d) Candidate has published two research papers from
his/her PhD work out of which at least one must be in a
refereed journal;
(e) Candidate has made at least two presentations in
conferences/seminars, based on his/her PhD work.
(a) to (e) as above are to be certified by the Vice-
Chancellor/Pro Vice-Chancellor/Dean (Academic
Affairs)/Dean (University instructions).” [ Regn. 3, 2016
UGCR.]
11. It was argued on behalf of Dr Merlin that Dr Jayakumar was
ineligible and could not have been granted exemption from the
7
2025:UHC:5036-DB
NET qualification which was essential under the prevalent
2009/10 UGCR. It was highlighted that the 2009 PhD Regulations
ushered a new rigorous academic framework for the award of
PhD degrees. If one kept this in mind, the stipulation that only
those candidates who acquired their PhD in terms of the 2009/10
UGCR were eligible for exemption from taking the NET — such a
stipulation was absolute. In other words, candidates who had
acquired their PhD in terms of the 2009/10 UGCR were the only
class of candidates who were exempt from having to qualify the
NET. Since Dr Jayakumar did not fall in that class, but had
obtained his PhD much earlier, the exemption did not apply to
him. To be eligible, he had to have taken the NET. It was
submitted that Dr Merlin on the other hand, was better qualified
because she had passed the NET in 1998 and had later obtained
a PhD. Further, she was working in the University of Kerala as a
contractual teacher since 2001. Despite these factors, the
University proceeded to appoint Dr Jayakumar and ignored her
candidature. As between the two of them, she alone was
qualified, whereas Dr Jayakumar was not. It was submitted that
the appellant Dr Jayakumar could not rely upon the resolution of
UGC taken in its 471st meeting.
12. The learned Senior Counsel for Dr Merlin urged that the
UGC’s resolution was contrary to the express terms of the 2010
UGCR. This became the subject-matter of controversy since the
Central Government had expressed its disagreement with the
resolution, in a Letter dated 23-11-2010. This controversy was
discussed in the decision of this Court in P. Suseela [P.
Suseela v. UGC, (2015) 8 SCC 129 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 633 : 7
SCEC 333] . The learned counsel relied upon that judgment to
urge that this Court had categorically ruled that UGC’s resolution
taken in its 471st meeting could not provide any relief to
candidates similarly situated as Dr Jayakumar as it was at odds
with the Central Government’s directives which had to prevail in
terms of the parent enactment. [ University Grants Commission
Act, 1956 (hereinafter “the UGC Act“).] The learned Senior
Counsel also relied upon the subsequent judgment in Manoj
Sharma [State of M.P. v. Manoj Sharma, (2018) 3 SCC 329 :
(2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 585] . It was further argued that the 2016
UGCR were expressly prospective in nature — those possessing
PhD qualifications prior to the cut-off date of 11-7-2009 but
seeking to benefit from the 2016 UGCR had to fulfil specific
conditions (as mentioned above) which were absent hitherto. In
the same vein, it was highlighted that though UGC has the power
to frame regulations with retrospective effect [by Section 26(3)
of the UGC Act] the 2016 UGCR is expressly prospective and that
this Court should not, by interpretation, give it retrospective
effect, as is being sought by the appellants. In these
circumstances, there could be no question of Dr Jayakumar
seeking to benefit from the 2016 UGCR which came into
force after his appointment. Having regard to these facts, it was
urged that this Court should desist from interfering with the
concurrent findings of the High Court.
13. From the narration of facts, it is evident that for long,
whenever the UGC introduced regulations pertaining to
qualifications for university teaching staff, exemptions were
provided for PhD and MPhil holders from the requirement of
qualifying in the NET. This is evident from the successive
changes which UGC introduced in the relevant regulations dealing
with eligibility and qualifications for appointment as Assistant
Professors, Associate Professors, etc. in 1993, 2000, 2002 and
2006. The 2009 PhD Regulations were the first time that the
pedagogic content of curriculum and manner in which evaluation
of thesis/viva voce, etc. were spelt out. Building on this, the
2009/10 UGCR dealt with the qualifications for appointment of
teaching staff in universities, and made a break with the past
8
2025:UHC:5036-DB
inasmuch as only those who had earned their PhD in terms of the
2009 PhD Regulations or were to earn them under that regime
were entitled to the exemption from taking the NET.
14. This meant that a large group of PhD holders (such as Dr
Jayakumar in this case) who had been awarded their doctoral
degrees prior to 11-7-2009 i.e. the cut-off date under the 2009
UGCR, suddenly became disentitled to claim exemption and
were per force made to appear and qualify in the NET. The UGC
become aware of this situation and by two resolutions dated 12-
8-2010 and 27-9-2010, opined that since the regulations are
prospective in nature, all candidates having MPhil degree on or
before 10-7-2009 and all persons who obtained the PhD degree
on or before 31-12-2009 and had registered themselves for the
PhD before this date, but would be awarded such degree
subsequently, shall remain exempted from the requirement of
NET for the purpose of appointment as Lecturer/Assistant
Professor. However, as the facts discussed in P. Suseela [P.
Suseela v. UGC, (2015) 8 SCC 129 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 633 : 7
SCEC 333] reveal — the Central Government did not agree with
the opinion of the UGC. Some correspondence took place
between the two authorities i.e. the UGC and the Central
Government. It was in the background of these facts that the
petitioner in P. Suseela [P. Suseela v. UGC, (2015) 8 SCC 129 :
(2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 633 : 7 SCEC 333] had approached the
Allahabad High Court (as did some other candidates in other High
Courts). The differing decisions of the various High Courts led to
appeals before this Court by special leave. In the batch of cases
decided by P. Suseela [P. Suseela v. UGC, (2015) 8 SCC 129 :
(2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 633 : 7 SCEC 333] , the question of
application of exemption from NET for candidates who obtained
PhD under the old regime (i.e. prior to the coming into the force
of the 2009 PhD Regulations) was considered — specially
whether the distinction between pre-and post-2009/10 UGCR
PhD holders amounted to an impermissible classification,
whereby one set (pre-2009) was denied exemption which the
other set (post-2009) was entitled to.
15. This Court in P. Suseela [P. Suseela v. UGC, (2015) 8 SCC
129 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 633 : 7 SCEC 333] ruled that since the
Central Government was the final authority under the UGC Act, it
had the final say with regard to how the 2009/10 UGCR were
going to operate. It was held that the regulations had to be
construed in such a manner that only those acquiring their PhD
degree or after 11-7-2009 in terms of the 2009 PhD Regulations
were entitled to the exemption.
16. The facts of this case would reveal that the selection process
was completed in 2012. There is no doubt that at that stage, the
2009 PhD Regulations and 2009/10 UGCR were in force. Yet the
University appointed Dr Jayakumar by applying the existing
standards as understood by it. According to the University, the
2009/10 UGCR was incorporated in its statute only in 2013. In
the opinion of this Court, that detail is irrelevant. What is
undeniable is that like Dr Jayakumar, there are perhaps hundreds
of other PhD candidates who had secured their degrees prior to
the 2009 PhD Regulations and who were, till the 2009/10 UGCR
were brought into force, entitled to claim exemption from NET in
every selection for any teaching vacancy in any university in
India. This state of affairs led the UGC to issue clarifications,
which the Central Government did not agree to. The appellant Dr
Jayakumar fell within that category of PhD holders for whom the
UGC intended to soften the rigours of the 2009/10 UGCR.
However, lack of approval by the Central Government led to
litigation which culminated in P. Suseela.
17.P. Suseela appears facially, to adversely clinch the issue with
9
2025:UHC:5036-DB
respect to pre-2009 PhD holders. The UGC perhaps realised the
hardship which they had to endure (with many of them even
appointed in various universities on account of the resolution
adopted in UGC’s 471st meeting on 12-8-2010), and therefore
amended the Regulations once more (2016 UGCR), which read as
follows:
“3. The proviso prescribed under Regulations 3.3.1, 4.4.1,
4.4.2, 4.4.2.2, 4.4.2.3, 4.5.3 and 4.6.3 in the University
Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications for
appointment of teachers and other academic staff in
Universities and Colleges and other measures for the
maintenance of standards in higher education) (3th
Amendment) Regulations, 2016 regarding exemption to
the candidates registered for PhD programme prior to 11-
7-2009 shall stand amended and be read as under:
Provided further, the award of degree to candidates
registered for the MPhil/PhD programme prior to 11-7-
2009, shall be governed by the provisions of the then
existing Ordinances/Bylaws/Regulations of the Institutions
awarding the degree and the PhD candidates shall be
exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET for
recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or
equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/institutions
subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions …” v(emphasis supplied)
18. The intention of the UGC to protect the pre-2009 PhD
holders, who may have been appointed in various universities
and taught for many years, is evidently clear in the language
adopted. To make the intention even clearer, the 2018 UGCR,
published on 18-7-2018, bifurcated the pre- and post-2009 PhD
holders into two groups, and allowed both exemption from taking
the NET, as follows:
“I. The National Eligibility Test (NET) or an accredited test
(State Level Eligibility Test SLET/SET) shall remain the
minimum eligibility for appointment of Assistant Professor
and equivalent positions wherever provided in these
Regulations. Further, SLET/SET shall be valid as the
minimum eligibility for direct recruitment to
Universities/Colleges/Institutions in the respective state
only:
Provided that candidates who have been awarded a PhD
degree in accordance with the University Grants
Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award
of MPhil/PhD Degree) Regulation, 2009, or the University
Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for
Award of MPhil/PhD Degree) Regulation, 2016, and their
subsequent amendments from time to time, as the case
may be, shall be exempted from the requirement of the
minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for
recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or any
equivalent position in any University, College or Institution:
Provided further that the award of degree to candidates
registered for the MPhil/PhD programme prior to 11-7-
2009, shall be governed by the provisions of the then
existing Ordinances/Bye-laws/Regulations of the
Institutions awarding the degree. All such PhD candidates
shall be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET
for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or
equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions
subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions…”
10
2025:UHC:5036-DB
(emphasis supplied)
19. This Court did not have the benefit of examining these
amendments to the regulations in P. Suseela or Manoj Sharma
To construe them as applying only prospectively, would give rise
to an absurdity, and defeat the purpose for which the
amendment was promulgated. The manner of interpretation of
amendments, where the language adopted gives clear inference
of retrospective application, was determined by this Court
in Rafiquennessa v. Lal Bahadur Chetri , which pertained to the
bar on eviction of tenants brought about retrospectively by an
amendment :
“9. … In order to make the statement of the law relating
to the relevant rule of construction which has to be adopted in
dealing with the effect of statutory provisions in this connection,
we ought to add that retrospective operation of a statutory
provision can be inferred even in cases where such retroactive
operation appears to be clearly implicit in the provision construed
in the context where it occurs. In other words, a statutory
provision is held to be retroactive either when it is so declared by
express terms, or the intention to make it retroactive clearly
follows from the relevant words and the context in which they
occur.”
This interpretation has withstood the test of time, and was
upheld in the decision of Darshan Singh v. Ram Pal Singh which
succinctly stated : (SCC p. 213, para 37)
“37. … courts will construe a provision as conferring
power to act retroactively when clear words are used.”
20. Further, in Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar , a Constitution
Bench of this Court discussed the scope and ambit of a
declaratory law and observed : (SCC p. 49, para 39)
“39. Lastly, it was contended on behalf of the appellants
that the amending Act whereby new Section 15 of the Act
has been substituted is declaratory and, therefore, has
retroactive operation. Ordinarily when an enactment
declares the previous law, it requires to be given
retroactive effect. The function of a declaratory statute is to
supply an omission or to explain a previous statute and
when such an Act is passed, it comes into effect when the
previous enactment was passed. The legislative power to
enact law includes the power to declare what was the
previous law and when such a declaratory Act is passed,
invariably it has been held to be retrospective. Mere
absence of use of the word “declaration” in an Act
explaining what was the law before may not appear to be a
declaratory Act but if the court finds an Act as declaratory
or explanatory, it has to be construed as retrospective.
Conversely where a statute uses the word “declaratory”,
the words so used may not be sufficient to hold that the
statute is a declaratory Act as words may be used in order
to bring into effect new law.”
21. The respondents herein had submitted that it was not the
UGC’s intention to give retrospective effect to the 2016 UGCR,
even though the UGC had the power to do so under Section
26(3) of the UGC Act. It was additionally urged that in such
circumstances, the court should not interpret the amendments so
as to confer such benefits retrospectively, especially to pending
proceedings.
22. This Court is unpersuaded by such contentions. In situations
such as these, a retrospective restoration of rights which had
11
2025:UHC:5036-DB
earlier been taken away, will certainly affect pending proceedings
— however, it is the duty of the courts, whether trying original
proceedings or hearing an appeal, to take notice of the change in
law affecting pending actions and to give effect to the same. If
on such consideration, it is held by the court that an amendment
speaks a language which expressly or by clear intendment takes
in even pending matters, the court of first instance as well as the
court of appeal must have regard to the intention so expressed,
and the court of appeal may give effect to such a law even after
the judgment of the court of first instance.
23. When an enactment or an amendment is declaratory,
curative or clarificatory, impelled by a felt need to make clear
what was always intended, such amendment is usually meant to
operate from an antecedent date, or to cover antecedent events.
This position was clarified in CIT v. Shelly Products where this
Court, while interpreting an amendment, held that : (SCC p. 478,
para 38)
“38. … It seeks to clarify the law so as to remove doubts
leading to the courts giving conflicting decisions, and in
several cases directing the Revenue to refund the entire
amount of income tax paid by the assessee where the
Revenue was not in a position to frame a fresh assessment.
Being clarificatory in nature it must be held to be
retrospective, in the facts and circumstances of the case. It
is well-settled that the legislature may pass a declaratory
Act to set aside what the legislature deems to have been a
judicial error in the interpretation of statute. It only seeks
to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act and
make explicit that which was already implicit.”
24. Likewise, in Zile Singh v. State of Haryana , this Court,
quoted from G.P. Singh’s Principles of Statutory
Interpretation (9th Edn.), and applied the relevant rule of
construction : (SCC p. 9, para 14)
“14. … If a new Act is “to explain” an earlier Act, it would
be without object unless construed retrospective. An
explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious
omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the
previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or
merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective
operation is generally intended. … An amending Act may be
purely declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the
principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory
amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect.”
25. Another argument raised by the respondent was that this
Court’s decision in Manoj Sharma squarely held against the
appellants. We disagree. In Manoj Sharma , the respondents had
obtained MPhil degrees under distance education programs,
which was de-recognised by the 2009 PhD Regulations. The
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that such de-recognition was
prospective in nature, and their MPhil degrees were not rendered
ineffective, which was upheld by this Court. As far as the issue of
application of 2009 UGCR was concerned, the same was
restricted to only MPhil degree-holders, wherein the 2009 UGCR
removed the NET exemption granted for MPhil degree-holders,
and retained it only for PhD holders in accordance with 2009 PhD
Regulations. Again, this Court was not afforded the opportunity
to analyse the 2016 or 2018 UGCR, as those were not raised
before it (the respondents were unrepresented before this
Court). Thus, we find limited applicability of Manoj Sharma to
the present case.
26. The logic pervading all the versions of the UGCR from 1993-
12
2025:UHC:5036-DB
2018 (as discussed above) to exempt MPhil/PhD holders from
qualifying in the NET was perhaps premised on the
understanding that such a doctorate in one’s chosen subject,
involving years of study, would render a greater understanding of
the subject compared to most other candidates taking the NET
who have only obtained a Master’s degree. Such qualification
(MPhil or PhD) is undoubtedly awarded for a
proven proficiency of the candidate in the subject or discipline
concerned. This is apparent from the minimum qualification
requirements of different positions as well, for e.g. while a
Master’s degree is sufficient for application to the post of
Assistant Professor, a PhD is required for applying to the post of
Associate Professor onwards. [See Regn. 4.1, 2018 UGCR,
applicable to all disciplines of Arts, Commerce, Humanities,
Education, Law, Social Sciences, Sciences, Languages, Library
Science, Physical Education, and Journalism & Mass
Communication.] To interpret the 2018 UGCR prospectively
would imply that a pre-2009 PhD holder’s appointment would be
rendered illegal, and after having taught for several years,
he/she would lose his/her seniority and all accrued benefits and
would now have to take the NET in order to teach — which is
clearly unwarranted. This Court therefore, holds that Dr
Jayakumar’s appointment is protected by the 2016 UGCR, which
is applicable retrospectively.
27. Thus, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment is set
aside, and all applications are disposed of accordingly. There will
be no order as to costs.”
11. In view of the law declared by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of University of Kerala v.
Marlin J.N. (supra), respondent no. 5 and 6 cannot be
held to be ineligible merely because their Ph.D. degree
is not as per UGC Regulations, 2009. The UGC
Regulations, 2016 provides that if competent authority
in the University, which awarded Ph.D. degree, certifies
that the concerned candidate has fulfilled the five
conditions enumerated in Regulation 3 thereof, then he
is to be treated as eligible for appointment and the
concerned University has issued such certificate in
favour of respondent no. 5 that his Ph.D. degree meets
all five conditions enumerated in UGC Regulations,
2016, therefore challenge to selection and appointment
of respondent no. 5 on the ground that his Ph.D.
degree was not awarded in regular mode cannot be
accepted.
13
2025:UHC:5036-DB
12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not
find any reason to interfere in the matter. Writ petition
thus fails and is dismissed.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
17.06.2025
Sukhwant
SUKHBANT
Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a
8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001,
SINGH
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7
D72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH
Date: 2025.06.23 10:52:27 +05’30’
14