Tanveer Ahmad Khan @APPELLANT@Hash Skuast & Ors

,

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking issuance of the following writs:,

“i) A writ, order or direction including one in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the condition of possession of Ph. D as mentioned in the",

advertisement notice, Annexure P2, the same being contrary to norms and criteria prescribed by UGC Regulations, 2010;",

ii) A writ, order or direction including one in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the decision of the respondents declaring the petitioner as ineligible in",

terms of RTIAnnexure P5;,

iii) A writ, order or direction, including one in the nature of Mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to re-advertise the post of Assistant",

Professor (Forestry) by incorporating the qualification as prescribed by UGC and allow the petitioner to participate in such selection process and,

accord consideration for his appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Forestry);,

iv) Any other writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be",

passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.â€​,

The above prayers are founded on the following averments made, and grounds taken, in the petition.",

Sher-i-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology of Kashmir, abbreviated as SKUAST (for short, the respondentuniversity),",

issued advertisement notice no.01 of 2017 dated 13.03.2017 notifying certain posts of Assistant Professors, including the post of Assistant Professor-",

cum-Junior Scientist (Forestry). The notice prescribed, inter alia, the following eligibility criteria:",

“Qualification Essential: I. (i) Master’s degree with minimum 55% marks or equivalent grade in OGPA or equivalent postgraduate qualification,

in the concerned/related subject;,

ii) Ph. D degree (with course work) in concerned / related subject as prescribed by the UGC (MSP) 2009 Regulations;,

iii) NET or at least two full length publications having a NAAS rating of not less than 4, on the last date of submission of application;",

OR,

II. (i) Master’s degree with 55% marks or equivalent grade in OGPA or equivalent postgraduate qualification in the concerned / related subject;,

(ii) Ph. D degree (without course work) in the concerned / related subject for candidates having completed their Ph. D prior to implementation of,

UGC (MSP) 2009 Regulation; (iii). NET (NET or at least two full length publications having NAAS rating not less than 4, on the last date of",

submission f application instead of NET at II (iii) above for the discipline of Sericulture) NET shall be exempted for the candidates registered for Ph.,

D prior to July 11, 2009 subject to the condition that:",

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 referred journal;,

e. Candidate has made at least two presentations in conference / 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).â€​,

The academic profile of the petitioner, as mentioned in para 2 of the writ petition, is as under: Â Â",

Course o study Particulars of the Institution Period Bachelors in Science Dr Balasaheb Swant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeet (Agri.,

University) Dapoli 2007-2008,

Masters of Science in Wood Science and Technology Forest Research Institute (Deemed University) Dehradun 2008-2010,

National Eligibility Test (NET) Agricultural Science, Forestry environment Recruitment Board 2012",

Doctor of Philosophy,

Chemical Engineering. Faculty of Chemical and Natural Resources in the University Malaysia Pahang,",

MalaysiaÂ,

It is averred in the petition that, being fully eligible for the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist (Forestry), the petitioner applied and",

offered his candidature for the post. However, he did not find his name among the shortlisted candidates uploaded on the website of the respondent-",

University. The petitioner is stated to have been informed that, owing to his lack of Ph. D in the concerned/related subject, i.e., Forestry, he was",

declared ineligible by the Screening Committee.,

The case of the petitioner is that the Screening Committee which declared him ineligible was incompetent, inasmuch as it was headed by a",

Professor who was not an expert in the relevant field; that in terms of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers,

and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010, as amended from",

time to time, (for short, UGC Regulations, 2010), framed by the University Grants Commission, a candidate is required to possess a minimum",

qualification of Master’s degree with at least 55% marks in the relevant subject and that he must have also cleared the NET conducted by the,

UGC, CSIR etc. According to the petitioner, the UGC Regulations, 2010, provide that a candidate having been awarded a Ph. D in accordance with",

UGC norms of 2009 shall be exempted from the requirement of having passed NET/SLET/SET, but the UGC Regulations, 2010, precisely do not",

make possession of Doctoral degree as an essential qualification for purposes of eligibility for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. In that,

context, it is contended that the advertisement notice insofar as it makes possession of Ph. D as a condition of eligibility is in disregard of the UGC",

Regulations, 2010 and, therefore, illegal, inasmuch as all the Universities in the country are mandatorily required to follow the criteria laid down by the",

UGC in the matter of appointment to various posts. As a necessary corollary, it is stated that the decision of the respondent-university to declare the",

petitioner as ineligible is contrary to law and, therefore, illegal, violative of the rights of the petitioner guaranteed to him under Articles 14 and 16 of the",

Constitution.,

Respondents 1 and 2, i.e., the respondent-university and its Registrar, in their objections/reply have stated that the eligibility requirement for the post",

as envisaged in the Statutes and as reflected in the Advertisement notice, formed basis for the Screening Committee to screen the applications for the",

advertised positions. It is averred that the petitioner, having Ph. D degree in Chemical Engineering, does not meet the statutory requirement of",

eligibility of Ph. D (Forestry) for the position of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist (Forestry), for, it, in no way, is related to the degree of Ph D",

in Forestry which is a prerequisite for the post in question. It is stated that the petitioner cannot claim eligibility for the post in question on the basis of,

the Ph. D degree held by him.,

It is further averred that the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement notice are in accordance and in consonance with the University Statutes.,

It is stated that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are not directly applicable to the Agricultural Universities, including the respondent-university, but they are",

required to be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act/Statutes/Regulations of the respondent-University by placing the same,

before its Statutory Authorities, like Academic Council, Board of Management and University Council. It is, however, averred that the UGC",

Regulations, 2010, have been adopted by the University with changes as were deemed necessary. It is stated that the qualifications prescribed by the",

UGC Regulations, 2010, are the minimum qualifications and that, while adopting these Regulations, the University, in order to have quality",

education/research/extension, decided to prescribe Ph. D degree as essential requirement for the post. It is also averred that as per Section 6(11) of",

SKUAST Act, the University is empowered to determine qualification for Teachers and to recognise persons as qualified to give instructions or to",

carry out research and extension education in Agriculture. It is further stated that while notifying the Statutes prescribing the qualifications for the said,

post, the University endorsed a copy, among others, to UGC, and that the advertisement notice is, therefore, in line with the statutory provisions.",

According to the respondent-University, the petitioner, in fact, had applied in response to the advertisement notice prescribing the qualifications which",

are now being challenged by him, after he was declared ineligible on the basis of such prescribed qualifications. It is averred that the decision of the",

Screening Committee is founded on the qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement notice.,

In para 10 of the reply, it is stated that the respondent-University conducted the interview of the eligible candidates on 10.08.2017 as per the",

schedule which stood notified. However, the selection orders have not been issued in view of the order of the Court dated 10.08.2017.",

It is also pointed out that on the one hand the petitioner has claimed his eligibility on the basis of possessing Ph. D in Chemical Engineering, on the",

other hand he is challenging the prescription of Ph. D degree as the essential qualification and thus, according to the respondent-University, the petition",

suffers from inconsistent stand taken by the petitioner.,

It may be mentioned here that the University Grants Commission, arrayed as respondent no.3 in the petition, in their reply have stated that in terms",

of Clause 1.1.1 of UGC Regulations, 2010, for teachers in the Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, the norms/Regulations of Indian Council",

of Agricultural Research (ICAR) are applicable. The said respondent has quoted Clause 1.1.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, in their reply which",

would be referred to later in this judgment. It is stated in the reply that the contention of the petitioner is misplaced and that the writ petition is liable to,

be dismissed.,

Though respondent no.4, Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi, is represented by Mr. S. A. Naik, yet no reply has been",

filed on behalf of the said respondent. For that reason, the right to file reply on behalf of the said respondent has been closed by order dated",

25.07.2018.,

One of the candidates, namely, Peerzada Ishtiaq Ahmad, at his instance, was impleaded as respondent no.5 in the petition. He, in his reply, has",

also stated that the qualification prescribed by the UGC in its Regulations, 2010, for the said post is the minimum qualification and that there is no bar",

for the SKUAST to prescribe Ph. D as essential qualification. Reference in this connection is also made to Section 6(ii) of SKUAST Act.,

Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.,

It is seen that though the petitioner, delineating his educational qualifications in para 2 of the petition, which includes Ph. D in Chemical",

Engineering, as well as quoting in para 3 of the petition the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement notice for the post in question, clearly states",

in para 4 of the petition that, possessed with the said qualifications and being fully eligible for the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist",

(Forestry), he submitted his application form. Meaning thereby that while responding to the advertisement notice and submitting his application form,",

the petitioner was not aggrieved of the qualification of Ph. D in the concerned / relevant subject prescribed therein. His positive case, instead, as is",

clearly characterised by his statements made in paras 2, 3 and 4 of the petition, is that he fulfilled the requisite qualification and was fully eligible,",

professing, though mistakenly, his Ph. D in Chemical Engineering as equivalent to Ph. D in the relevant / concerned subject. These statements made",

by the petitioner in the aforesaid paras of the writ petition had a direct reference to the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement notice. But when,

his name did not figure in the shortlisted candidates and he was informed that he was ineligible for the post on account of his lacking Ph. D degree in,

the relevant / concerned subject, it dawned upon the petitioner to challenge the Advertisement notice prescribing Ph. D in the concerned/relevant",

subject as essential qualification, on the ground that the prescription of such a qualification was contrary to the minimum qualifications prescribed by",

the University Grants Commission in its Regulations of 2010, and that he, in fact, possessed the minimum qualifications for the post as prescribed by",

the UGC. Obviously, the challenge to the prescription of Ph. D qualification in the advertisement notice is an afterthought. This is one aspect of the",

matter. The other aspect of the matter is that while stating his positive case on the aforesaid line, the petitioner has also questioned the competence of",

the Screening Committee which declared him ineligible for the post on account of his lacking Ph. D in the relevant/concerned subject on the ground,

that the head of the Screening Committee was not himself an expert in Forestry, but he was holding additional charge as Dean, Faculty of Forestry,",

and that he actually was Professor in the department of Entomology. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the declaration made by the Screening",

Committee was illegal and arbitrary. Meaning thereby, that the petitioner sought to put up a case that he was possessed of the requisite qualification of",

Ph. D in the relevant / concerned subject, but the Screening Committee was incompetent, its head being not an Expert in the subject, to visualize that.",

At the same time, as said above, the petitioner has specifically challenged the Advertisement notice in so far as it prescribed Ph. D degree in the",

relevant/concerned subject as essential qualification. Thus, there is a serious mutually self destructive contradiction in the stands taken by the",

petitioner and it is not a case of alternative pleas being taken by him. It is to be borne in mind that the act of taking contradictory stands in a writ,

petition has the effect of cutting the case of the petitioner at its root. A writ petitioner is mandated to approach the Court with a clear stand; otherwise,

it can safely be said that the petitioner has failed to make out a case. This is what the petitioner has done in the instant case.,

This Court, however, is not intending to dismiss the writ petition on this count; the Court, instead, deems it just and appropriate to deal with the",

Query,Clarification

Are the Styate Governments

empowered to raise the qualifying

standards prescribed under the

regulations?

Are the State Governments

empowered to incorporate

additional qualifying standards

over and above those prescribed

under the regulations of UGC?","UGCÂ has prescribed the minimum

qualifications for appointment of

teachers and other academic staff

through UGC Regulations on Minimum

Qualifications for

Appointment of Teachers and other

Academic Staff in Universities and

Colleges and measures for the

maintenance of standards in higher

Education, 2010 amended from time to

time. The Appointing Authority may

raise the qualifying standards without

deviation from the minimum

qualifications prescribed by UGC, if it

so desires.Â

It be further seen that Clause 3.2.0 under the heading Recruitment and Qualifications of these Regulations provides that the minimum,

qualifications required for the post of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors, etc. will be those as prescribed by the UGC in the",

Regulations. Then under Clause 4.0.0., ‘Direct Recruitment’ after the posts of Professor, Principals and Associate Professor, at sub-clause",

4.4.0., occurs the post of Assistant Professor. In relation thereto, the following is provided:",

 “4.4.0 Assistant Professor,

 4.4.1 Arts, Humanities, Sciences, Social Sciences, Commerce, Education, Languages, Law, Journalism and Mass Communication",

i. Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading,

system is followed) at the Master’s Degree level in a relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited",

foreign university.,

ii. Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR or",

similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET.,

iii. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) to this Clause 4.4.1. candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph. D. Degree in",

accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedures for Award of Ph. D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be",

exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant ProfessorÂ,

or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institution.,

iv. NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which,

NET/SLET/SET is not conducted.â€​,

From a plain reading of sub-clause (i) of Clause 4.4.1, it become axiomatic that it does not, ipso facto, lay down Master’s as the minimum",

qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor; it only lays down the minimum percentage of marks at Master’s level. This,

requirement of percentage of marks at Master’s level is not relaxable even if a candidate possesses Ph. D. Now, it be borne in mind that clause",

(e) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act gives the UGC the power to define the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any,

person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University. As is seen, sub-clause (i) of Clause 4.4.1., says ‘good academic record as defined by",

the concerned university’ and then, sets the lower limit of percentage of marks at Master’s level, meaning thereby that the UGC, while fixing",

the minimum percentage of marks at Master’s level, in its turn, has left it to the discretion of the university concerned to define “good",

academic record†and, in that relation, however, the UGC has itself only set the minimum requirement as to the percentage of marks at the",

Master’s level at 55%, below which, obviously, no candidate would be eligible to apply for the post. So, the intention of the Regulations, clearly is,",

to leave it to the university concerned to fix not only the higher percentage of marks at the Master’s level, but also to mark out the higher limit of",

educational qualification for a post. This clause, therefore, cannot be read in a sense that it prescribes Master’s degree as the requisite",

qualification and/or that a university is bound to prescribe Masters as the requisite qualification for appointment on the post in question, or that it cannot",

prescribe any higher qualification. The Regulations make it abundantly clearly that the right to define the good academic record has been left to the,

discretion of the Universities, which is to set the boundaries or extent of qualifications. This, however, would not preclude a University to prescribe",

only Masters as the requisite qualification.,

Then sub-clause (iii) of Clause 4.4.1 of the Regulations makes the things further clearer. It is seen that this sub-clause starts with a well,

understood word ‘notwithstanding’. Ordinarily, the meaning and the intent of this clause can clearly be understood by the words following it,",

which are ‘anything contained in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) to this Clause 4.4.1’. Thus, as literally as it can be read, the meaning and intent of this",

non-obstante clause is plain and clear, which is that whatever is said in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) has to be excluded. However, the sub-clause",

conspicuously further qualifies the non-obstante clause by saying that candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph. D. Degree in accordance with",

the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedures for Award of Ph. D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, 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/Institution. This part of the sentence does not say anything about the minimum qualification mentioned in sub-clause (i), though",

by implication of the non-obstante clause, the minimum standard mentioned in sub-clause (i) would automatically get excluded. This appears to be so",

because a candidate possessing Ph. D. would necessarily have the Master’s degree at his credit and, therefore, the non-obstante part of the sub-",

clause (iii) would not exclude the minimum standard set in sub-clause (i) of the Regulation which is 55% marks at Master’s level. Therefore, even",

if a candidate holds Ph. D. Degree, for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, he is required to fulfill the requirement of such percentage of",

marks at Master’s level. And the fact remains that sub-clause (iii) of Clause 4.4.1 speaks of what would be the requirement in case of a,

candidate possesses Ph. D., meaning thereby that the UGC has been conscious that it is leaving the discretion to define the good academic record to",

the universities and that it has visualized the possibility of a university prescribing Ph. D., as the required qualification for the post. Viewed thus, the",

answer to the question that this Court is faced with, which is whether the respondent-university could prescribe Ph D. as the qualification for",

appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, from the scheme of things, discussed above, has to be yes; because, in any case, the UGC Regulations",

only define the minimum standards. Therefore, for the sake of maintaining excellence and high quality in the standard of education, the respondent-",

university would be within its powers to prescribe a higher qualification, like Ph. D., if the University Statutes / Rules / Regulations or any law",

governing it, permit so, and if that be so, the candidates would be exempted from possessing the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET.Â",

It may also be mentioned here that, as is expressly stated in the Preamble, the object of the Regulations is to issue minimum qualifications for the",

maintenance of standards in higher education. In Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M. P., (1999) 7 SCC 120, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme",

Court was faced with almost a similar question arising vis-Ã -vis the Medical Council of India Regulations. The issue before the Supreme Court was,

whether apart from providing reservation for admission to the postgraduate courses in Engineering and Medicine for special category candidates, it",

was open to the State to prescribe different admission criteria, in the sense of prescribing different minimum qualifying marks, for special category",

candidates seeking admission under the reserved category? The said issue had arisen in the background of developments in the States of U. P. and M.,

P. in respect of admission to postgraduate degree/diploma courses in medicine through the Postgraduate Medical Entrance Examination (PGMEE).,

The States had progressively reduced the minimum qualifying marks for reserved category candidates appearing in the PGMEE. The constitutionality,

of the Government order, ordinance and Act concerned were impugned before the Supreme Court. The Constitution Bench, per majority decision,",

held that while prescribing the criteria for admission to the institutions for higher education, including higher medical education, the State cannot",

adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union of India under Entry 66 of List I, and that, “of course, there can be rules for admission",

which are consistent with or do not affect adversely the standards of education prescribed by the Union in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of List,

I. For example, aState may, for admission to the postgraduate medical courses, lay downqualifications in addition to those prescribed under Entry 66 of",

Lit I. This would be consistent with promoting higher standards for admissionto the higher educational courses. But any lowering of the norms,

laiddown can and does have an adverse effect on the standards of educationin the institutions of higher education…â€​ (emphasis supplied),

So, going by the above ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, prescribing higher standards of qualifications than the",

minimum qualifications defined by the UGC, by a State or a University would be consistent with the object of the Regulations in question of",

maintenance of standards in higher education.,

In the context of the same MCI Regulations, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Rajiv Gupta v State of J&K, SWP no.188 of 2011, decided",

on 07.05.2013, has held that MCI Regulations have overriding effect and that the law, rules, regulations or government instructions made by the State",

Government on the subject are to give way to the MCI Regulations to the extent such law, rules and Government Instructions, regulations are in",

conflict with MCI Regulations, unless the State law, rules or regulations provide for higher standard of qualifications and experience as compared to",

Indian Medical Council Act or MCI Regulations. It would be appropriate to quote hereunder para 25 of the said judgment:,

“25. It is therefore well settled that MCI Regulations have overriding effect and the law, rules, regulations or government instructions made by the",

State government on the subject, are to give way to the MCI Regulations to the extent such law, rules, and Government Instructions regulations are in",

conflict with MCI Regulations unless theState law, rules or regulations provide for higher standard ofqualification and experience as compared to",

Indian MedicalCouncil Act or MCI Regulations. We have to be alive to the object and purpose of Indian Medical Council Act 1956 and MCI,

Regulations. The purpose obviously is to provide high and uniform standards in all the medical institutions in India as the medical education because of,

its importance does not admit of any compromise on the standards in teaching, infrastructure, composition of courses / syllabi, etc. However,where the",

State law, rules or regulations prescribe higherstandards than one prescribed under Indian Medical CouncilAct or MCI Regulations, such higher",

standard is to befollowed as the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 and theMCI Regulations provide the floor and not the ceiling. The Regulations of,

1998, as pointed out earlier, have been made by MCI in exercise of powers available under Section 33 Indian Medical Council Act 1956 with the",

previous sanction of the central government. The Regulations therefore have statutory flavour and are to be followed by the Medical Institutions,

imparting medical education.â€​,

    (Emphasis supplied),

On the same analogy, therefore, even if it be assumed, for a moment, that the UGC Regulations have an overriding effect on the law, rules,",

regulations framed by the State or a university concerning the subject, yet, if such law, rules or regulations of the State or a university provide a higher",

standard of qualifications than the one prescribed by the UGC, the same cannot be said to be in conflict with the UGC Regulations; instead such rules",

or regulations would maintain the object of the UGC Regulations of maintaining standard in education and would, therefore, be permissible.",

Coming to the law, Statutes and Regulations governing the respondent-University, it is the creation of the Sher-e-Kashmir University of",

Agricultural Sciences and Technology Act, 1982. Section 6 thereof deals with the functions and powers of the University and says that the University",

shall have the functions and powers delineated thereunder.. Sub-section (11) thereof reads: “to determine qualification for teachers and to,

recognize persons as qualified to give instructions or to carry out research and extension education in Agricultureâ€. Section 39 of the Act, under",

Chapter-VII captioned ‘Statutes and Regulations’ provides for Statutes. It says that subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes of the",

University may provide for any matter connected with the affairs of the University and shall, in particular, as provided thereunder, which, in terms of",

sub-section (4) includes classification, qualification and manner of appointment, terms and conditions of services and duties of teachers and other non-",

teaching staff of the University. Then Section 40 of the Act provides for how statutes are to be made. The University has made its Statues which,

stand notified vide notification no.06 of 1983 dated 10.11.1983.Â,

Chapter-II of the Statutes so framed by the University, deals with appointment of officers and teachers of the University. Statute 6 deals with the",

method of recruitment and clause (b)(i) thereof says that the Vice Chancellor shall have a post advertised indicating therein the requisite qualifications,

to be passed by a candidate prescribed in the Schedule. In terms of clause (v) of the Statute 5, ‘Schedule’ has been defined to mean the",

Schedule annexed to the said Chapter. The Schedule-I to Chapter-II concerns the appointment of officers and teachers of the University. The post of,

Assistant Professor/Jr. Scientist/ Subject Matter Specialists (SMS) figures at serial no.10 of the Schedule. Under column 3, captioned qualification for",

direct recruitment, it mentions as under:",

“Essential,

i) Master’s degree with minimum 55% marks or equivalent grade in OGPA or equivalent postgraduate qualification in the concerned subject.,

ii) Ph. D degree (with course work) in concerned subject as prescribed by the UGC Regulations 2009 (Ph. D is relaxable for candidates holding Post-,

graduation Degree in Veterinary Sciences / M. Tech degree in relevant field of Agricultural Engineering, alongwith one publication in NAAS rated",

referred Journal and NET).,

iii) NET or at least two full length publications having a NAAS rating not less than 4, on the last date of submission of application.",

OR,

i) Master’s degree with 55% marks or equivalent grade in OGPA or equivalent postgraduate qualification in the concerned subject.,

ii) Ph. D degree (without course work) in the concerned subject.,

iii) NET,

Note (1):Â NET essentiality for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor and equivalent in the disciplines in which NET is conducted, for the",

candidates registered for Ph. D prior to July 11, 2009, shall be exempted subject to the conditions that:",

a) Ph. D degree of the candidate is awarded in regular mode only;,

b) Evaluation of the Ph. D thesis is done by at least two external examiners;,

c) Open Ph. D viva-voce of the candidate has been conducted;,

d) Candidate has published two research papers from his/her Ph. D work, out of which at least one must be in referred journal;",

e) Candidate has made at least two presentations in conference/seminar, 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)….â€​Â,

It is thus seen that the respondent-University has in its Statutes provided a higher standard of qualifications than the one prescribed by the UGC in,

their Regulations, 2010, as amended from time to time, and these Statutes have been framed in exercise of the power vested in the University in terms",

of the relevant provision(s) of an Act of the State Legislature. The same qualifications have been provided by the respondent-University in the,

advertisement notice under challenge. Going by the ratio of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava v.,

State of M. P. (supra), read with the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Rajiv Gupta v State of J&K (supra), the qualifications",

prescribed by the respondent-University cannot be said to be contrary to, or in conflict with, the UGC Regulations, 2010.Â",

In view of all what has been discussed above, it is held that the qualifications mentioned in the UGC Regulations 2010, as amended from time to",

time, are the minimum qualifications below which no University or Institution can go, but at the same time, with a view to maintaining the excellence in",

the standard of education, a University or an institution can prescribe higher qualifications than such minimum qualifications mentioned in the UGC",

Regulations, 2010; provided that the law, Rules, Statutes or the Regulations framed by the State and/or the University/Institution provide for, or",

prescribe such higher qualifications.Â,

In light of the above, the grievance sought to be raised in this petition is held to be untenable. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and",

is, as such, hereby dismissed together with the connected miscellaneous petition(s), vacating the interim direction, if any, subsisting as on date.",

No order as to costs.,