- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9103 WP No. 30398 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30398 OF 2015 (S-RES) BETWEEN: MANJAPPA TALWAR, S/O SRI DURGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, BEEKANAHALLI-577102. CHIKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NARAYANA BHAT M, ADVOCATE [PH]) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE WOMENS' UNIVERSITY, BIJAPUR, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, STATION ROAD, BIJAPUR-586 108. 2. SRI P HANUMANTHAIAH, S/O SRI P. BORAIAH, AGED 41 YEARS, WORKING AS ASST. PROFESSOR OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION, KARNATAKA STATE WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY, BIJAPUR, STATION ROAD-586 102, BIJAPUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.K ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 [PH]; SRI S RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 [PH]) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AND DIRECTION TO HOLD THE SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE POST OF ASST. PROFESSOR IN Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9103 WP No. 30398 of 2015 PHYSICAL EDUCATION IS ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE UGC REGULATIONS COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to quash the selection and appointment of the respondent No.2 to the post of Assistant Professor in physical education as illegal and contrary to the UGC Regulations. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of quo warranto to remove the respondent No.2 from the post of Assistant Professor-Physical education on the ground that he does not possess the requisite qualification. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider his case for appointment of the post of Assistant Professor in physical education. 2. The respondent No.1 issued a notification dated 16.05.2012 inviting applications to several posts including the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe. He contends that he had all the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9103 WP No. 30398 of 2015 qualification and was eligible to apply against the said post and that he also belonged to schedule tribe. The petitioner appeared for the interview. However, he was not selected but the respondent No.2 was selected. He contends that UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in the Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education prescribed the "recruitment and qualification" which is as follows: "3.0.0 RECRUITMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS 3.1.0 The direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and professors in the Universities and Colleges shall be on the basis of merit though all India advertisement and selections by the duly constituted Selection Committees as per the guidelines prescribed under these Regulations to be incorporated under the Statutes/Ordinances of the concerned university. The composition of such committees should be as prescribed by the UGC in these Regulations. 3.2.0 The minimum qualifications required for the post of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors, Principals, Assistant - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9103 WP No. 30398 of 2015 Directors of Physical Education, Deputy Directors of Physical Education, Directors of Physical Education, Assistant Librarians, Deputy Librarians will be those as prescribed by the University Grants Commission in these Regulations. 3.3.1 NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities / Colleges / Institutions. Provided however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded Ph. D. degree in compliance of the "University Grants Commission (minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D. Degree), Regulations 2009, shall be exempt from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities / Colleges / Institutions." (underlining by me) He contends that the respondent No.2 was awarded with the Ph.d degree in the year 2007 and that he was not awarded with Ph.D as prescribed under the UGC Regulations, 2009. He therefore contends that the respondent No.2 was not exempt from requirement of obtaining a pass certificate in NET / SLET / SET to be qualified for the appointment to the post of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9103 WP No. 30398 of 2015 the Assistant Professor in physical education. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the appointment of respondent No.2 and also sought for a direction to the respondent No.1 to select him to the post of Assistant professor in physical education. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and contended that the respondent No.2 had obtained Ph.D. degree not under the UGC Regulations, 2009 but before the Regulations, 2009. Therefore, he contended that respondent No.2 was not exempt from a pass in NET/SLET. 4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.2 who contends that as per Regulations, 2009 the candidate who had postgraduate degree, was exempt from the requirement of passing NET and SLET. He contends that the issue whether a candidate who had obtained Ph.D. degree prior to the year 2009 was exempt from the eligibility criteria of passing NET and SLET or not came up for consideration before Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No.101/2011 where the Court held that the Ph.D. degree obtained prior to Regulations, 2009, cannot be effaced and such candidates cannot be declared ineligible to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9103 WP No. 30398 of 2015 apply for the post of Assistant Professor. Similar references are made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of University of Kerala and others Vs. Merlin J.N. - SLP (C) No.12591 - 12596/2020, where it was held that Regulations, 2009 are prospective in nature and does not affect Ph.D. degree obtained prior to the date of Regulations, 2009 came into force. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 reiterated the above contentions and contended that respondent No.2 was more meritorious than the petitioner and that he had also completed his M.phil. He therefore contends that on all counts, the appointment of respondent No.2 was justified and hence, prays that the writ petition be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supporting the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that the respondent No.2 had more merit than the petitioner and therefore his appointment is just and proper. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9103 WP No. 30398 of 2015 8. The eligibility criteria as prescribed by UGC for the post of Assistant professor in universities, colleges was good academic record with 55% of the marks at the Master's level and qualification in NET and SLET. However, in respect of those candidates, who had Ph.D. degree, they were exempt from minimum eligibility condition of a pass in NET and SLET. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 had obtained Ph.D degree in the year 2007 which was much prior to the University Grants Commission - UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M.phil/Ph.D. Degree) Regulation, 2009. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 had obtained Ph.D. degree in the year 2007 and UGC Regulations came into force in the year 2009 and therefore, cannot exempt the respondent No.2 from the eligibility condition of a pass in NET and SLET, defies logic and does not stand to reason. As a matter of fact, the UGC Regulations, 2009, does not speak about the effect of Regulations, 2009 on Ph.D. degree obtained before the Regulations, 2009 came into force. Since the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the respondent No.2 had Ph.D. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9103 WP No. 30398 of 2015 qualification, the respondent No.2 was rightly entitled to be exempted from the requirement of a pass in NET and SLET. 9. This apart, the respondent No.2 had higher qualification than the petitioner and had more merit, in as much as, the respondent No.2 had obtained 77.62% in the masters degree, but the petitioner had obtained 74.82%. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent No.2 cannot be held to be in violation of the prescribed qualification. 10. Therefore, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47