1 2026:CGHC:26058 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4746 of 2026 Omnarayan Tiwari S/o Late Shri P.D. Tiwari Aged About 60 Years R/o Block- F, Sgrr University Medical College Patel Nagar, Patel Nagar Campus, Dehradun, Po- Dehradun, District- Dehradun, Uttrakhand ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla University Raipur Through Its Registrar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Vice Chancellor Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Registrar Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Aprajita Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 25.06.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.06.2026, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Professor (Philosophy & Yoga) has been rejected and he has been declared ineligible. He submits that the petitioner is fully JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.06.25 17:46:24 +0530 2 eligible for the said post in terms of Regulation 10 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and also possesses the requisite academic qualifications, research publications and teaching experience, including the required ten years’ experience, but despite the same, his candidature has been rejected on an erroneous and arbitrary ground. 2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/University submits that as per Clause III of the UGC Regulations, a minimum of ten years’ teaching experience in a University/College as Assistant Professor/Associate Professor is an essential requirement for appointment to the post of Professor. He submits that the experience certificate relied upon by the petitioner pertains to the post of Programme Coordinator at Pt. Sunder Lal Sharma University, which is a non-teaching post, and therefore, the said experience cannot be treated as teaching experience within the meaning of the UGC Regulations. It is submitted that since the petitioner did not possess the requisite teaching experience as prescribed, his candidature has rightly been rejected. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 4. It is settled law that the matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the Government, and the Court does not have expertise in such matters. (See: State of Rajasthan and Others v. Lata Arun reported in 2002 AIR SCW 2966 and 3 Basic Education Board, U.P. v. Upendra Rai and Others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 432). 5. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the essential eligibility condition for appointment to the post of Professor under the UGC Regulations is ten years’ teaching experience in a University/College as Assistant Professor/Associate Professor or equivalent academic position. The experience certificate relied upon by the petitioner, however, pertains to the post of Programme Coordinator, which has been shown to be a non- teaching post. In absence of material to establish that the said experience falls within the category of teaching experience as contemplated under the UGC Regulations, this Court does not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the respondent/University in holding the petitioner to be ineligible and rejecting his candidature vide order dated 16.06.2026. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti