Universities Cannot Reject Associate Professor Aspirants Solely Over Lower Pay During Contractual Service: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that state universities cannot reject applications for Associate Professor posts solely because contractual teaching faculty were paid less than the gross emoluments prescribed for regularly appointed Assistant Professors under the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018.

In doing so, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed that the emoluments requirement under Regulation 10(f)(iii) cannot be treated as an absolute criterion when the candidates' requisite teaching experience is undisputed.

Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 (for short 'the UGC Regulations') permits counting prior ad hoc, temporary or contractual teaching service, subject to the condition that gross emoluments were not less than those of a regularly appointed teacher in the relevant cadre.

Regulation 13 mandates that contractual teachers receive emoluments no lower than those of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor.

The Court made these observations while disposing of a batch of writ petitions filed by teaching faculty challenging their exclusion from the selection process for Associate Professor posts advertised by state universities in May 2026.

The Court said:

“However, the emoluments cannot be said to be an absolute determining factor over experience of teaching, where there is no whiff of a doubt to the qualitative minimum teaching experience in the cadre or equivalent cadre of Assistant Professor, like in the case of nonregular teaching faculty in the Universities and Government lecturers in Government colleges teaching corresponding courses.

The Universities, having not paid the emoluments as those of Assistant Professor to the Petitioners, could not have taken advantage of their wrong and reject the applications of the Petitioners.”

The petitioners had been working in various state universities for considerable periods in different non-regular designations while discharging duties akin to those of Assistant Professors or Associate Professors. They applied for Associate Professor posts after the universities issued separate recruitment notifications on May 2026, seeking to fill around 1,500 teaching positions across the state.

Their applications were rejected on the ground that they lacked regular service with the requisite pay scale under the UGC Regulations, as adopted by Andhra Pradesh through G.O.Ms.No.14 dated February 13, 2019. The rejection also cited other grounds that could be corrected.

Challenging their exclusion, the petitioners argued that their teaching experience gained while discharging duties against teaching posts should count towards their eligibility. They contended that the universities had disregarded this experience because their remuneration was lower than that of regularly appointed teachers.

Under the UGC Regulations, appointment as an Associate Professor requires eight years of teaching and/or research experience equivalent to that of an Assistant Professor, along with the prescribed academic qualifications, publications and research score. Regulation 10 sets out the conditions for counting past service, including service rendered on an ad hoc, temporary or contractual basis.

The State adopted the UGC Regulations through G.O.Ms.No.14 and subsequently issued additional selection guidelines through G.O.Ms.No.20 dated June 28, 2023.

Under Clause 4.3 of the latter order, past teaching experience is subject to conditions concerning qualifications, appointment through a duly constituted selection committee and the prescribed pay or gross emoluments, verifiable through bank statements or income tax returns.

Relying on the UGC Regulations, 2018, the Petitioners maintained that their applications could not be rejected merely because they had served in non-regular teaching positions.

During the proceedings, the universities submitted that there was no dispute regarding the petitioners' appointments through the prescribed selection process or their teaching experience.

In view of the submissions, the Court noted that teaching experience gained through ad hoc, temporary or contractual appointments could be counted where the individual possessed the requisite qualifications and had been appointed on the recommendation of a duly constituted selection committee.

It added that, even where some petitioners were designated as academic consultants rather than Assistant Professors, their teaching duties had to be construed, at least, as those of an Assistant Professor for counting service under the UGC Regulations.

The Court also examined Regulation 13, which limits contractual appointments to 10% of the total teaching positions in a university or college. It requires contractual teachers to possess the same qualifications and undergo the same selection procedure as regularly appointed teachers. Their fixed emoluments must also not be lower than the prescribed salary of an Assistant Professor.

In this regard, the Court noted that state universities had gone without regular recruitment for more than 15 years due to various litigations. They had consequently resorted to different nomenclatures for teaching appointments made through notifications and selection committees.

The Court further observed:

“As observed above, the applications of the Petitioners could not be rejected for want of emoluments as there is no dispute to the qualitative minimum teaching experience of (08) years. Another aspect to be noted in these cases is that Clause 13 of the Regulation mandates that all contract employees are entitled to be paid emoluments equal to those of regularly appointed Assistant Professors in the respective Universities.

Though the Regulation 13 mentions that the same applies to persons appointed on contract basis, the same is loosely worded and should be construed as covering all the persons working in the teaching faculty on a non-regular basis. The above mandates that the emoluments paid to such contract teachers be not less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor and the deviation in payment cannot be to the disadvantage of the Petitioners working in the very University.”

Turning to the emoluments requirement, the Court observed that making a candidate's eligibility dependent on the salary paid by a previous employer would be arbitrary, as the candidate had no control over the amount received. It held that the provision had to be interpreted in a workable manner, consistent with its purpose of verifying teaching experience and preventing unverifiable claims.

The Court clarified that the objective was to ensure eight years of qualitative teaching experience for appointment as an Associate Professor. The emoluments requirement was intended to authenticate claims of teaching experience, rather than operate as an absolute bar where the requisite experience was undisputed.

It further observed that contractual teachers might not have been in a position to demand remuneration equivalent to that of regularly appointed Assistant Professors, given the risk of removal and their lack of bargaining power.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the respondent-universities to re-examine the petitioners' applications for Associate Professor posts without insisting on the emoluments prescribed under Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018.

The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Kavitha Gottipati

Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Services III; Ch. U. M. Reddy, Standing Counsel for V. Simhapuri University, Nellore