[2026:RJ-JP:7175] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9564/2014 Mohit Dixit S/o Shri Sudhir Dixit, aged about 30 years, resident of 121, Muktanand Nagar, Gopalpura By-Pass, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus University Of Rajasthan Service Through Registrar ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.P. Mathur Mr. A.K.Sharma Senior Advocate through Video Conferencing HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Judgment 1. Date of conclusion of arguments 12/02/2026 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 12/02/2026 3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment 4. Date of pronouncement 16/ 02/2026 1. The present civil writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be please to call for the entire record from the respondent Department in respect of the number of applications called, qualifications, the persons interviewed and the list of selection so as to come to a conclusion that the petitioner has not validly been called for the interview inspite of having better qualifications than the others, who had been called for the interview and either of the [2026:RJ-JP:7175] (2 of 7) [CW-9564/2014] person have been given appointment on the post. After scrutinizing the record, this Hon’ble Court may kindly pass the appropriate orders, thereby directing the respondent that the petitioner be called for the interview and for consideration according to law for the post of Assistant Professor (Education) and if found successful be granted appointment according to law. All the other consequential benefits in respect of pay, seniority etc. be also allowed to be granted to the petitioner. Any other appropriate order or direction, which is deemed to be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. It is averred in the writ petition that the respondents issued an advertisement (Annexure-1) dated 01.11.2012, inviting applications in prescribed forms for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in various subjects, and the petitioner applied in pursuance of the said advertisement through a registered post on 26.12.2012. It is also averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was never informed of the rejection or acceptance of the application, and, after making enquiries, nothing was revealed. Thereafter, the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act and learned that his candidature had been rejected. Thereafter, a demand notice (Annexure-7) was sent through the Advocate, but it also remained unanswered. It is also averred in the petition that at the time of applying for the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Education), the petitioner was eligible as per the University Ordinance, i.e., Ordinance 141-D, and had [2026:RJ-JP:7175] (3 of 7) [CW-9564/2014] the requisite PhD Degree. It is also stated that as per the qualification, clearance of NET Examination was not necessary, however, despite the necessary qualification, petitioner’s candidature was not considered and even he was not informed about the rejection of his application, therefore, the respondents be directed that the petitioner be called for interview and considered accordingly for the post of Assistant Professor (Education) and if found successful, be granted appointment in accordance with law. The respondents, in their reply and additional affidavit, have stated that at the time of applying for the post of Assistant Professor, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification and had not qualified for the NET Examination. In the additional affidavit submitted by the respondents, it is also averred that pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.11.2012, none of the candidates having a degree of PhD was given exemption from NET/SLET/SET; only those candidates who have acquired a degree of PhD, as per the University Grants Commission Regulations 2009, were to be exempted. It is also averred in the affidavit that the petitioner did not acquire the PhD Degree as per the Regulations of 2009 and the Ordinance 141-D(9) explicitory provides that the period of time spent by the candidates to acquire M.Phil and PhD Degree shall not be considered as teaching/research experience to be claimed for appointment to the teaching position, such period shall be calculated from the date of commencement of research to the date of submission and or re- submission research to the date of PhD, if subsequently awarded. [2026:RJ-JP:7175] (4 of 7) [CW-9564/2014] Likewise, the period spent by a Teacher candidate on leave from duty, to acquire an M.Phil or PhD Degree, shall not be considered as teaching experience for claiming appointment to a teaching position. The affidavit also states that the Scrutiny Committee, after considering the documents along with the University Ordinance and UGC Regulations, denied the petitioner any exemption, as he did not have NET/SLET on the relevant date, i.e., 15.02.2013. The affidavit also states that the post advertised on 01.11.2012 was filled. 3. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite having a requisite PhD Degree, the petitioner’s candidature was not considered, and the petitioner was also not informed about the reasons for dismissal of his candidature. It is also argued that the petitioner did not come to know that his candidature was required on the ground of ineligibility until he applied under the Right to Information Act. It is contended that the petitioner applied for a PhD Degree. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of the University of Kerala & Ors. Etc. Vs. Merlin J.N. And Anr. ETC. ETC. passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.(s) 13841-13858 of 2020 dated 17.08.2022. It is further contended that the petitioner’s candidature was rejected arbitrarily; therefore, the direction may be given to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s candidature for the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Education). [2026:RJ-JP:7175] (5 of 7) [CW-9564/2014] 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that at the time of applying for the post of Assistant Professor (Education), the petitioner was not having requisite eligibility as per the Ordinance 141-D which clearly provides that the persons who are or have been awarded a PhD Degree in accordance with University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 shall be exempted. The petitioner has not placed on record that he obtained the PhD Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission Regulations 2009. It is also submitted that the respondent did not consider the candidature of the applicants who did not have a PhD Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission Regulations 2009. It is also contended that the post for which the petitioner applied was already filled in 2012. Thereafter, if any subsequent vacancy occurs, then also the petitioner is not eligible, as for a subsequent vacancy, the advertisement has to be made in accordance with law; therefore, the present writ petition is misconceived and without any substance, hence, required to be dismissed. 6. Heard and perused the material available on record. 7. The respondents in their additional affidavit have categorically stated that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 01.11.2012, no candidates who had a degree of PhD in accordance with University Grants Commission Regulations 2009 were allowed. The petitioner does not hold a PhD Degree in accordance with the 2009 Regulations. Even if it is presumed that the petitioner has submitted the PhD Degree, mere submission of [2026:RJ-JP:7175] (6 of 7) [CW-9564/2014] the PhD Degree is not sufficient, as the eligibility criteria clearly state that the PhD Degree must be obtained in accordance with the 2009 UGC Regulations. The petitioner has failed to show that he had the requisite PhD degree under the 2009 Regulations. 8. In the judgment of the University of Kerala Vs. In Mrinal Jain (supra), the Apex Court examined the validity of an appointment made on the basis of a PhD degree obtained before the 2009 Regulations. It ruled that, after the promulgation of regulations 2016 & 2018, individuals who obtained PhD degrees before the promulgation of the 2009 Regulations are eligible for appointment as Associate Professors. The Hon’ble Court also referred to the judgment of P. Suseela Vs. University Grants Commission, 2015 (8) SCC 129, wherein the validity of the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for the Award of PhD Degree) Regulations, 2009, was challenged. In the case of P. Suseela (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Regulations of 2009 were enacted to tighten the standards to ensure quality in the appointment of Lecturers and Associate Professors in the University. 9. Thus, it is apparent that when the petitioner applied, he did not have a valid PhD degree as per the 2009 Regulations. 10. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is not maintainable as at the relevant time, the Regulations of 2009 were in force and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Suseela (supra) has already upheld the validity of the Regulations of 2009. [2026:RJ-JP:7175] (7 of 7) [CW-9564/2014] 11. It is pertinent to mention here that the post has already been filled and much water has already flown; therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is devoid of any merit and hence dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ramesh Vaishnav/179