Master's Degree In Allied Subject Valid For Assistant Professor Appointment Under UGC Regulations: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that under the UGC Regulations governing appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, a candidate possessing a Master's Degree in the concerned, relevant or allied subject from an Indian University with 55% marks is eligible for appointment.The Court observed that the UGC Regulations treat degrees in “concerned”, “relevant” and “allied” subjects at par and do not provide any preference to a candidate possessing a Master's Degree in the concerned subject.  

Hence, refusing to interfere with the appointment of an Assistant Professor in the Department of History, including Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archeology, the Court further observed that a Screening Committee consists of academicians who are experts in their respective field and, while exercising power of judicial review, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the opinion of subject experts.  

The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit was dealing with a writ petition challenging the selection and appointment of respondent no. 3 as Assistant Professor in H.N.B. Garhwal University.  

The petitioner had responded to an advertisement dated 22.08.2019 issued by H.N.B. Garhwal University for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of History, including Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archeology. The petitioner possessed a Master's Degree in History besides a Ph.D. Degree in the same subject and participated in the selection process. However, he was not recommended for appointment and respondent no. 3 was selected and appointed.  

The petitioner challenged the selection and appointment mainly on the ground that respondent no. 3 did not possess a Post Graduate Degree in History but possessed a Master's Degree in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archeology from H.N.B. Garhwal University.

The first Screening Committee consisting of five members examined the eligibility of candidates and found both the petitioner and respondent no. 3 eligible to participate in the selection process. Thereafter, another Screening Committee consisting of two members screened out respondent no. 3. Subsequently, a third Screening Committee, consisting of the same two members, found respondent no. 3 educationally qualified for the post. Respondent no. 3 thereafter appeared before the Selection Committee and was offered appointment based on its recommendation.  

The petitioner submitted that since the appointment was to be made in the Department of History and the Post Graduate Degree possessed by respondent no. 3 was not in History but in an allied subject, respondent no. 3 could not have been selected for appointment when candidates possessing Post Graduate Degree in History were available.

The petitioner relied upon the report of the second Screening Committee to contend that respondent no. 3 was found not eligible for appointment.  

The University submitted that the contention that respondent no. 3 was not eligible for not possessing a Master's Degree in History was without substance. It was argued that the appointment was to the Department of History, including Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archeology, and therefore the Post Graduate Degree possessed by respondent no. 3 was valid for appointment as per the UGC Regulations.  

Referring to Clause 4.1-1-A(i) of the UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers, the University submitted that a candidate having a Master's Degree with 55% marks in the concerned/relevant/allied subject is eligible for appointment. It was further submitted that the expressions “concerned”, “relevant” and “allied” are separated by a slash, which has to be read as “or”.  

The University further submitted that the Master's Degree possessed by respondent no. 3 could not be treated merely as an allied subject as the name of the subject in which respondent no. 3 pursued the Master's Degree Course resonated with the name of the department in which appointment was sought.  

“As per UGC Regulations governing the field, anyone who possesses Masters Degree in concerned or relevant or allied subject from an Indian University with 55% marks, is eligible for appointment as Assistant Professor.

As per the UGC Regulations, degree in 'concerned' or 'relevant' or 'allied' subject are to be treated at par as it does not provide any preference to a candidate having Masters Degree in concerned subject. The expressions 'concerned', 'relevant' and 'allied', are separated by using slash, which signifies intention of the rule making authority that these are interchangeable and a candidate with any one of the three qualifications is eligible. Thus, petitioner cannot claim to be better placed merely because he possesses Masters Degree in History”, the Court held.

Furthermore, accepting the respondents'contention, the Court observed that the Master's Degree in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archeology possessed by respondent no. 3 resonated with the name of the Department in which appointment was to be made, as instructions were imparted not only in History but also in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archeology. Thus, respondent no. 3 could not be held ineligible.  

On the reliance placed on the second Screening Committee, the Court observed that the selection and appointment of respondent no. 3 “could not be disturbed solely on the basis of its opinion, especially when the third Screening Committee with the same composition had found respondent no. 3 eligible for appointment”.

The Court further observed that “Screening Committees consist of academicians who are experts in their respective field and, therefore, while exercising judicial review, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the opinion of subject experts”.

Hence, since the subject experts had found respondent no. 3 qualified for appointment and their opinion was in consonance with the UGC Regulations, the Court found no reason to interfere and held that the reliefs claimed by the petitioner could not be granted.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and the interim order, if any, stood vacated.  

Case: Dr. Jaspal Singh Khatri Versus Union Of India and Others [Writ Petition Service Bench No.250 of 2020

Click Here To Read/Download Order