Debangana Ray
Published on August 19, 2022 at 17:12 IST
The Supreme Court held that the UGC regulations 2016 would be applied retrospectively. The bench comprising of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia, Ravindra Bhat and UU Lalit, stated that an amendment which is merely clarificatory in nature is supposed to have retrospective application.
According to the UGC, in order to be appointed as a lecturer in a university qualifying the national eligibility test was compulsory.
However, it exempted candidates who had acquired M.Phil or submitted their PhD thesis after taking NET.
The bench contended that since a large group of PhD holders before the coming of force of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to It) Regulations, 2009 [UGCR 2009] suddenly became disentitled to claim the exemption.
The Bench was of the opinion that if the UGCR is interpreted to be prospective in nature, then the pre-2009 PhD holder’s appointment would be rendered illegal and, after teaching for several years, they would now be forced to take the NET in order to continue as a lecturer, which, it reckoned, was ‘clearly unwarranted’.
The Court allowed the appeals of the University of Kerala and set aside the judgments of the High Court.