2025:UHC:2071-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI 21ST MARCH, 2025 Writ Petition (S/B) No.641 OF 2018 Neeta Arya …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 : Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. JUDGMENT : (per Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Petitioner was appointed as teaching personnel on short term basis, on monthly remuneration of `8,000/-, w.e.f. 08.08.2007. The said appointment was till 31.12.2007 or till regular appointment on the post, whichever is earlier. According to her, the short term appointment given to petitioner was extended from time to time. 1 2025:UHC:2071-DB 2. In the year 2018, a regularization committee was constituted to consider the claim of persons appointed on contract / short term basis, as per the Regularization Rules framed by the State Government, which were adopted by Kumaon University. The Committee considered claim of teaching personnel for regularization, including the petitioner. 3. Since the Regularization Committee did not recommend petitioner’s case for regularization; and the recommendation made by the Regularization Committee in favour of certain other teaching personnel was accepted by Executive Council of the University, therefore, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the decision of Regularization Committee and also the Executive Council. The Regularization Committee has held that although petitioner was appointed on 08.08.2007, however, she obtained Ph.D. degree only on 31.12.2009, therefore, she is not eligible for regularization. The Regularization Rules are on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Rule 4 of the said Rules lays down the conditions of eligibility and Rule 4 (2) provides that a person who was appointed against a sanctioned vacant post on contract, consolidated salary, part time or ad hoc basis and was having all requisite qualifications for appointment to the post, at the time of his/her initial appointment, alone is eligible for regularization. 4. The stand taken by the University in the counter affidavit is that since petitioner obtained Ph.D. degree on 31.12.2009, much after her appointment as 2 2025:UHC:2071-DB teaching personnel and she has not completed requisite five years service, with necessary qualifications, on the date of enforcement of the Regularization Rules i.e. 30.12.2013, therefore, her services were not liable to be regularized. 5. Since petitioner has not qualified National Eligibility Test (NET)/SLET, nor she was having M. Phil. Degree, therefore Ph.D. degree alone would have made her eligible for appointment as teacher in the University. Since petitioner obtained Ph.D. Degree only on 31.12.2009 and her services fell short of required five years, if reckoned from 31.12.2009 till enforcement of Regularization Rules, therefore, the decision taken by Regularization Committee, as approved by the Executive Council cannot be faulted. 6. Petitioner contends that some candidates, who obtained Ph.D. degree after their initial appointment, were recommended for regularization. The University in para no. 9 of the counter affidavit has referred to a notification issued by University Grants Commission, which was adopted by Government of Uttarakhand, which reads as under:- ”…NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer for those with post- graduate degree. However, the candidates having Ph.D. degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG level and UG level teaching. The candidates having M.Phill degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching only” 7. From the above extracted portion of the notification, it is revealed that qualifying NET is essential, however, candidates with Ph.D. degree are 3 2025:UHC:2071-DB exempted from the requirement of qualifying NET. Similarly, candidates with M. Phil. degree in the concerned subject are also exempted from NET for UG level teaching only. There is no pleading that other persons, who were regularized were also identically placed, as the petitioner or in other words, they also do not possess NET/SLET/ M.Phill./Ph.D., at the time of their appointment. 8. Since, petitioner do not meet the eligibility condition, as mentioned in Rule 4 (2) of the Regularization Rules, therefore, the decision taken by the Regularization Committee cannot be faulted. Thus, there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the Executive Council. We do not find any scope for interference in the matter. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. ______________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. _______________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 21.03.2025 Navin 4