Specific UGC Qualifications For Business Administration Faculty Override General Eligibility Criteria: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that where the First Statutes of a university prescribe specific minimum qualifications for teachers of Management/Business Administration, those qualifications govern the selection, and the general criteria for the faculty under which the department is placed cannot be applied instead.

The General Eligibility Criteria in Statute 11.03.01 of the First Statutes of the University of Lucknow, applied to the Faculty of Commerce by Statute 11.03.04(A), require evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students. Statute 11.03.04(G) carries the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010 qualifications for teaching posts in Management/Business Administration.

The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,

“Under the Regulations, 2010 eligibility is determined on the basis of whether the subject/discipline of the Master's or Ph.D. degree corresponds to the requirements of the advertised teaching post irrespective of whether the appointment is made in a department or a faculty.”

“This Court is of the view that once the Regulations, 2010 had been incorporated, it was not open for the University of Lucknow to make any selection in contravention of the eligibility qualifications prescribed under the Regulations, 2010. The reference to Statute 11.03.04(G) relating to the Faculty of Management/Business Administration does not permit selections to be made in the Department of Business Administration under the Faculty of Commerce in violation of the eligibility qualifications prescribed under the Regulations, 2010.”

The University advertised the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Business Administration on 10.08.2015, and Dr. Himanshu Mohan and Dr. Sangeeta Sahu were appointed on 11.02.2016. Dr. Ritu Narang, another applicant, filed a belated representation before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, alleging that the Selection Committee was wrongly constituted and that the two had not shown that they had guided doctoral candidates and research students, as the criteria for the Faculty of Commerce required. The Chancellor rejected the first ground, accepted the second and cancelled both appointments on 27.11.2017.

Before the High Court, the appointees argued that Statute 11.03.04(G), brought into the First Statutes under Section 50(6) of the Act, 1973 with effect from 03.12.2013, was specific to Business Administration and would prevail, and that the Selection Committee had never asked them for those documents, which they held in any event.

The respondents submitted that only the criteria for the Faculty of Commerce could apply.

The Court noted that no separate Faculty of Management/Business Administration existed when the selections were made. It held Statute 11.03.04(G) to be specific and Statute 11.03.01 general, and the specific provision to prevail.

“We are of the view that Statute 11.03.04(G) was incorporated into the “First Statutes” as a consequence of the adoption of the Regulations, 2010 and prescribes specific eligibility qualifications for the appointment of teachers in Management/Business Administration courses. Being a specific provision, it would prevail over the General Eligibility Criteria prescribed under Statute 11.03.01 of the “First Statutes” of the University of Lucknow.”

Once the Regulations, 2010 stood incorporated, no appointment could be made in disregard of them, and the Chancellor had failed to account for that amendment, held the Court.

On the missing documents, the Court held,

“their selection cannot be held to be illegal merely on the ground that they did not submit such documents particularly when the same were neither demanded nor required by the Selection Committee during the course of the selection process.”

Holding the order dated 27.11.2017 to rest on a misconceived view of fact and law, the Court quashed it and allowed both writ petitions, holding the selections just and proper and the petitioners entitled to all consequential benefits.