Kalyan Ghosh and Others vs The State of West Bengal and Others

Prasenjit Mandal, J.—This application is at the instance of some candidates having Ph.D. degree in different subjects and is filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to rescind, cancel and withdraw the cut off date as mentioned in the UGC Regulations 2009 wherein the cut off date has been mentioned to the effect that the person awarded Ph.D. degree after July 11, 2009 are not eligible for appearing examination and other consequential reliefs including raising the upper age limit from 37 to 40 years. The West Bengal College Service Commission published an employment notification dated December 27, 2012 for filling up the posts of Assistant Professors, Principals and Librarians. The eligibility criteria and other conditions have also been mentioned therein.

The contention of the petitioners is that they filed different applications for different posts of Assistant Professors in different subjects for general degree colleges other than B.Ed. colleges and B.Ed. departments. They are the holders of master degree in the respective subjects and Ph.D. degree in the relevant subjects. The respondent UGC published Regulations of 2009 effective from July 11, 2009 to the effect that the candidates who have been awarded Ph.D. degrees in terms of the Regulations 2009 will be exempted from NET qualification mandates. The petitioners started their Ph.D. course prior to the Regulations of 2009, but, exemption has been given to certain categories of candidates who have been awarded Ph.D. degrees in terms of the Regulations of 2009. Being aggrieved this application has been preferred.

Now, the question is whether the respondent authorities acted contrary to the statutory provisions by not allowing the petitioner to participate in the selection process for appointment to the aforesaid posts and whether the Regulations of 2009 should be rescinded, cancelled and withdrawn.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that there is no dispute that the petitioners had registered their candidatures for obtaining the Ph.D. degree before the Regulations of 2009 came into force by the Gazette Notification dated July 11, 2009 as indicated in Annexure P-4 at Page No. 72. Such Regulations lay down the exemption of certain categories of the holders of the Ph.D. degree who have registered their names under the Regulations 2009 published in the Gazette of India dated July 11, 2009.

This application is at the admission stage and at this stage the question of maintainability of this application has been raised.

So far as the prayer for raising upper age limit from 37 to 40 years is concerned, I am of the view that it is simply a policy decision of the Government and in deciding such a policy decision, I do not find any discrimination or arbitrariness. So, this Writ Court should not interfere with the policy decision of the Government relating to age of a candidate and so the prayer for raising the upper age limit from 37 to 40 years cannot be entertained by this Writ Court.

It may be noted herein that similar type of the present case was heard and disposed of by this Bench being W.P. No. 3075 (W) of 2013 wherein, after hearing the contention of both the parties to the petition, an elaborate judgment and order was passed. The fact of that case and of this case are completely similar challenging the Regulations of 2009 and other consequential reliefs. The said petition being W.P. No. 3075 (W) of 2013 was dismissed by this Bench by the judgment and order dated February 26, 2013. It can be stated that the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground, inter alia, as stated below:-

Having regard to the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I am of the view that there is no dispute that the UGC is an expert body to decide the national policy of higher education of the country and this commission is assisted by a body of experts in different fields to save the system of higher education in the country. The national policy has been adopted by the Government on the education system and since the Ph.D. Degree-holders under the Regulations of 2009 or the candidates registered under Regulations of 2009 for the Ph.D. Degree having gone through a different procedure, a reasonable classification, in my view, is quite permissible. Such a reasonable classification has been adopted on the basis of the Regulations dated July 11, 2009 and September 18, 2010 giving exemption from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition whose Ph.D. degree has been awarded in accordance with the UGC (minimum standards and procedure for awarding Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 or the persons who have been registered under the Regulations of 2009.

No doubt, that such Regulations are prospective and not retrospective, yet the state is at liberty to make a reasonable classification. Therefore, such a reasonable classification, in my view, cannot be termed as illegal. The petitioners were exempted from appearing in the Eligibility Test under the Regulations of 2006. But, when for betterment of the education system, as a national policy, the Regulations of 2009 were adopted, I am of the view that the petitioners are bound to go through that Regulations, if they opt to be selected for recruitment by the Regulations in vogue. ....

Since a reasonable classification is permissible, for the reasons discussed above, I am of the view that the terms and conditions of the Advertisement No. 1 of 2012 published by the College Service Commission cannot be described as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petitioners are not entitled to exemption from appearing in the Eligibility Test in terms of Regulations of 2006.

In consequence, the petitioners cannot get any relief.

The application is, therefore, dismissed.

The petitioners having stood on the similar footing to those of the petitioners of W.P. No. 3075 (W) of 2013 are not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for.

Accordingly, I am of the view that this application is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

Since, I have disposed of the application at the motion stage, the allegations contained in the application stand not admitted by the respective respondents. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.