WP ( C ) No. 2206/2025. Serial No.13 Regular list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 2206/2025 Dr. Mohd. Iqbal Khan. ….. Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate. V/s Union of India & Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Faizan Ganai, CGSC vice Mr. Tahir Majid Shamsi, DSGI CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 15.09.2025 1. In the instant petition, the petitioner herein has sought the following relief(s):- a) By issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or any other appropriate direction/command relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the attending circumstances of the case and this Hon’ble Court may kindly declare “imposition of criterion 60% for PG in Postgraduate Management Studies/Business management/Business Administration to apply for the post of Assistant Professor under AICTE Rules and the said criterion be declared illegal arbitrary, unjustified and volative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India”. b) By issuance appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper keeping in view the circumstances of the case and this Hon’ble Court may kindly declare that imposition of criterion by UGC regulations (UGC Act, 1956) eligibility of 55% in PG Postgraduate Management Studies/Business Management/Business Administration to apply for the post of Assistant Professor with NEY/Phd and said 55% criterion in PG to apply for the post of Assistant Professor in Management be declared prevailing over in the case of petitioner and 55% criterion requirement with NET or Phd to apply for the post of Assistant Professor in the Universities of Jammu and Kashmir including University of Kashmir, university of Jammu, University of Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah, University of Islamic University of Science and Technology Awantipora and SKUAST, the said imposition of 55% criterion PG in Management be declared to prevail in the said Universities as the said Universities are recognized and governed by the UGC Regulations. WP ( C ) No. 2206/2025. Page 2 of 3 c) By issuance of appropriate direction or appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and propert in the attending circumstances of the case and 55% PG in Postgraduate Management Studies/Business Management/Business Administration be declared eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professor in Management Studies including the petitioner. 2. The aforesaid reliefs are being sought on the premise that an arbitrary and discriminatory eligibility criteria has been prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) for the post of Assistant Professor which runs in conflict with the University Grants Commission Act of 1956, in that, under the UGC guidelines framed there under 55% marks at the post graduate level is the minimum eligibility criteria for appearing in National Eligibility Test, State Eligibility Test, Junior Research Fellowship and Senior Research Fellowship as well as for admission to Phd programmes, across all subjects, however, the AICTE in terms of its norms of 2010, provides that only the candidates with 1st class having 60% of marks at post graduate level in Management/Business Management/ Business Management are eligible for the post of Assistant Professor. 3. It is being thus stated that the inconsistency between the UGC guidelines and AICTE norms has created an arbitrary and discriminatory situation, as the AICTE norms excludes from the zone of consideration a candidate seeking appointment in any University in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It is also stated that though multiple written representations were submitted by the petitioner in this regard before the respondents, yet no decision thereof has been taken by the respondents. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record available on the file. WP ( C ) No. 2206/2025. Page 3 of 3 4. Perusal of the record available on the file inasmuch as, the grievance projected by the petitioner in the instant petition as also the case set up would manifestly tends to show that the petitioner, has either no locus standi to maintain the instant petition or else a cause of action inasmuch as, a right, entitling him to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Under these circumstances, the petition is found to be grossly misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge SRINAGAR 15.09.2025 “Abdul Rashid” Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No. Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document :25.09.2025 10:18