Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court recently reserved judgment on the issue whether the period spent to acquire Ph.D. can be counted towards teaching experience for the appointment as Associate Professor as per the norms of the University Grants Commission.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Manmohan heard the petitions filed by the UGC as well as Professor Joseph Skaria challenging the Kerala High Court's 2023 judgment which upheld the appointment of Priya Varghese, wife of CPI(M) KK Ragesh who was the Private Secretary to the then Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, in the Kannur University.

The issue arose after Dr.Joseph Skariah, who was ranked after Varghese in the Rank List, had filed the writ petition challenging the inclusion of Varghese in the List, stating that she was not qualified for the post of Associate Professor as she did not have the prescribed 8 years of teaching experience.

A single judge of the Kerala High Court found that Varghese didn't have the requisite teaching experience and directed Kannur University to re-examine her credentials. This was challenged by Varghese before the division bench, which held it in her favour. Against this, the aggrieved candidate and the UGC appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Arguments in SC

For the petitioner Joseph, Senior Advocate PN Ravindran referred to UGC Regulations, 2018, Regulation 3.1.1, which reads as:

"The time taken by candidates to acquire M.Phil. and/or Ph.D. Degree shall not be considered as teaching/research experience to be claimed for appointment to the teaching positions. Further, the period of active service spent on pursuing a Research Degree simultaneously with teaching assignment without taking any kind of leave, shall be counted as teaching experience for the purpose of direct recruitment/promotion. Regular faculty members up to twenty percent of the total faculty strength (excluding faculty on medical/maternity leave) shall be allowed by their respective institutions to take study leave for pursuing Ph.D. degree." 

He submitted that Regulation 3.1.1 is divided into three parts; the first is a general provision applying to all "candidates". Whereas the second part extends to those in active service, and the third part is merely a guideline for regular faculty. He argued that Varghese doesn't fall in the second category because she was on deputation and a new substitute teacher was appointed when she came to Kannur University. Further, at Kannur University, she held a non-teaching post, that is, the post of Director of Student Services.

Referring to various ordinances of the Kannur University, the counsel pointed out that the Director of Student Services is merely an interactive post and not a teaching post. He added that the last part also puts a limit that only 20% of the teachers can go for PhD. 

Justice Manmohan at this point questioned the counsel if such interpretation is discouraging young professionals from taking up higher posts.

He said: "In Delhi University, the dean only interacts. Young professors have been known to be appointed in big posts; if we accept your interpretation, these professors will not become and take a position if you say this doesn't count as teaching post." 

Justice Kumar also questioned the counsel's interpretation, particularly that the last part of the regulation prescribing a limit of 20% is merely a guideline. He stated that the third part allows a regular faculty with leave to pursue PhD.

"First category, the word 'candidates' qualify all. But the first part deals with those pursuing MPhil and Phd and they will not be considered for teaching experience for purpose of appointment. Second says you need not be part of faculty, you are on service and you pursue it without taking leave. The third limb, how would you exclude because he becomes a part of the Faculty." 

Justice Manmohan agreed with Justice Kumar, and stated that the counsel's interpretation would make the third part otiose as it needs to be given a meaning as to why it allows regular faculty on leave to purpose PhD.

For Varghese, Senior Advocate K Parmeshwar clarified that she was not on leave but on deputation. He also revealed that the petitioner Joseph has not disclosed that he has retired and is working as a Professor in Calicut University. 

He also questioned the 20% interpretation by the petitioner's counsel. He said: "The 20% was not for how much percentage you can spare- it was a package clause to address for faculty who are pursuing PhD would be considered as teaching or research experience. The intent was clear, even if you are leave, it was supposed to be considered as teaching experience."

He stated that any other interpretation could be illogical.

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj also made brief arguments on the interpretation of Regulation 3.1.1. 

He opposed the inclusion of the disputed periods in Priya Varghese's teaching experience, arguing that she did not satisfy the mandatory eight-year eligibility requirement under the UGC Regulations, 2018. The UGC argued that the time Varghese spent pursuing her PhD under the Faculty Development Programme could not be counted towards teaching experience under the 2018 Regulations. It contended that the earlier UGC clarification allowing certain periods spent pursuing a PhD to count had been superseded by the 2018 Regulations. Nataraj submitted that Varghese was away from her teaching duties during the PhD period and that a substitute teacher had been appointed at her college. This, he argued, indicated that she was not actively engaged in teaching while pursuing her research. The UGC maintained that research undertaken while on leave could not be treated as teaching experience.

The Court while reserving the matter, asked Varghese's counsel to submit a chart of her teaching experience. 

Tags: