UGC, Ph.D. Requirement for promotion in Maharashtra colleges cannot be applied retrospectively: Bombay High Court

Background

A group of assistant professors in Maharashtra colleges have been denied promotions for lack of Ph.D. degree despite meeting all qualifications and receiving recommendations for promotion. These faculty members were appointed in 2006 and 2007, much before the 2018 UGC rules that made PhD compulsory. as a qualification for promotion. The petitioners argued that the new 2018 rules should not have retrospective effect on their promotions since they had already qualified under the 2016 rules, which did not allow them to obtain a PhD. forced.

Following the state government’s 2018 ordinance, promotions were suspended for teachers without a Ph.D. degree in March 2019. The university, which had initially approved their promotions, referred them for further scrutiny, but the state’s joint director of education eventually withdrew the final approval, citing updated guidelines. The petitioners sought a declaration that their promotions should be in accordance with the 2016 rules, which do not require a Ph.D. for promotion to assistant professor.

Arguments

The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, claimed that they meet the criteria of the 2016 UGC rules. They argued that retroactive application of the 2018 rules was unfair and inconsistent with the legislative intent of the user-generated content guidelines, which allowed discretion to apply the old rules to those already in service. They also cited a recent user content notice removing the controversial provision, arguing that it supported their position regarding non-retroactive enforcement.

The respondents, including the Maharashtra State and the UGC, argued that the UGC Rules 2018 and the corresponding Government Resolution 2019 expressly provide for the award of Ph.D. for promotion, which had legal force. Citing decisions emphasizing the central authority of user-generated content rules over government policy, they argued that the petitioners’ claims for promotion are not valid without a PhD degree in accordance with the mandatory nature of the 2018 guidelines.

Court’s reasoning

First, the court noted that the 2018 UGC Regulation and the corresponding 2019 government regulation do not contain any retroactive provisions, holding that new rules generally apply prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise. This meant that applicants who were eligible for promotion under the 2016 standards could not be promoted to the new Ph.D. requirement for promotion. Second, the court emphasized the principle that legislation establishing additional qualifying criteria must not violate vested rights or legitimate expectations. Because the applicants had received promotion recommendations from their university in accordance with the 2016 guidelines, they had a legitimate expectation of promotion under those standards. Ph.D. required. at this stage, in the court’s view, this would pose an undue hardship.

Thirdly, the court clarified that the applicants are subject only to the qualification standards in force at the time of their initial appointment and continued service, as per UGC norms. He further noted that the 2016 Ordinance allows consideration of alternative qualifications, including the Ph.D. only as an additional criterion for waiving publication requirements, and not as a separate mandate for promotion. The court also rejected defendants’ arguments about other cases, such as Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of Biharwhere the conflict concerned legislative supremacy between state rules and user-generated content rules. The court distinguished this case, noting that the petitioners’ scenario did not imply a conflict with state law; rather, it was simply a matter of applying user-generated content regulation.

Finally, the court emphasized that any changes to academic promotion criteria must prioritize continuity and fairness, especially in education sectors where career advancement affects the quality of teaching in the long term. Since the 2016 ruling was the prevailing standard when applicants were eligible for promotion, it held that any subsequent rulings should not impair their statutory rights. The court, therefore, directed the State Joint Director of Education to review the promotion proposals of the applicants as per the 2016 rules within six weeks, confirming that the 2018 UGC Rules and the 2019 Government Order providing for Ph.D. will not apply to the applicants’ cases. The claims were partially satisfied.

Date: 25-10-2024

Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:26548-DB, Vijayamala Tanaji Guge and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Plaintiffs’ lawyer: Senior Advocate Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar

Defendants’ lawyer: Shri S.P. Joshi, State AGP; Shri S.V. Munde for UGC

Click here to read/download the order