Courts Cannot Rewrite or Read Down Regulations Without Grounds of Unconstitutionality: Supreme Court Upholds UGC Regulation on Teaching Experience for Assistant Professor Recruitment

Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment allowing appeals against the Allahabad High Court’s decision. The High Court had read down Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers) Regulations, 2018 (UGC Regulations) concerning the recognition of past teaching experience for shortlisting candidates for Assistant Professor positions.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, upholding the regulation's validity, reasoning that it rationally distinguishes between teaching experiences based on the emoluments received and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The judgment reaffirmed that judicial intervention in subordinate legislation must be based on established grounds of ultra vires and not mere perceived anomalies.

The case arose when Respondent 1, Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey), challenged the shortlisting criteria adopted by Allahabad University and its affiliated colleges for Assistant Professor posts. She contended that her prior teaching experience as a guest lecturer and contractual faculty was unfairly excluded from consideration due to Regulation 10(f)(iii), which mandates that only those who received emoluments equivalent to regularly appointed Assistant Professors qualify for marks under Table 3A of the UGC Regulations.

Respondent 1 applied for Assistant Professor positions in multiple advertisements issued by Allahabad University and its constituent colleges between 2021 and 2022.
While Respondent 1 fulfilled the minimum educational qualifications, her experience as a guest and contractual lecturer was excluded during shortlisting.
The University relied on Regulation 10(f)(iii), which specifies conditions for counting prior teaching experience for recruitment, including a requirement that contractual faculty receive gross monthly salaries equivalent to regularly appointed Assistant Professors.
The High Court of Allahabad, while addressing writ petitions and special appeals filed by Respondent 1, read down Regulation 10(f)(iii), holding it inapplicable for Assistant Professor recruitment and limited its scope to appointments requiring prior experience, such as Associate Professors and Professors.

The Supreme Court was tasked with addressing the following key issues:

Validity of Regulation 10(f)(iii): Whether Regulation 10(f)(iii) is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Judicial Overreach: Whether the High Court was justified in reading down Regulation 10(f)(iii) without declaring it ultra vires.
Shortlisting Criteria: Whether the University's reliance on Regulation 10(f)(iii) for shortlisting candidates was reasonable and permissible.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Regulation 10(f)(iii), rejecting claims of arbitrariness under Article 14. It reasoned that the distinction based on emoluments serves a legitimate purpose of ensuring quality teaching experience:

The Court observed, “The emolument-based distinction under Regulation 10(f)(iii) is not arbitrary but rational and consistent with UGC policy to ensure merit-based shortlisting for Assistant Professor recruitment.”
Teaching experience as guest faculty or contractual faculty without meeting the specified salary threshold cannot be equated with full-time positions offering prescribed pay scales, which are designed to attract and retain qualified individuals in academia.

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for reading down Regulation 10(f)(iii) without declaring it unconstitutional. It reiterated the principle that courts can only read down a provision to save it from unconstitutionality, not to rewrite or bypass its legislative intent:

The Court held, “The High Court erred in reading down Regulation 10(f)(iii) without declaring it ultra vires. Such judicial overreach is impermissible and undermines the sanctity of subordinate legislation.”
It noted that Regulation 10(f)(iii) explicitly applies to Assistant Professor recruitment, and the High Court’s interpretation, which excluded its applicability, amounted to judicial legislation.

The Court affirmed that the shortlisting process based on Table 3A of the UGC Regulations was rational, transparent, and necessary for efficient recruitment:

It observed, “Shortlisting criteria such as Regulation 10(f)(iii) are permissible to handle large volumes of applications and ensure fair and merit-based selection processes.”
The University demonstrated that its reliance on Regulation 10(f)(iii) resulted in narrowing the zone of consideration to candidates with relevant teaching experience at appropriate emolument levels, ensuring that only the most meritorious candidates were shortlisted for interview.

The Court emphasized that recruitment policies framed by expert bodies like the UGC must be respected unless they violate constitutional or statutory provisions. It cautioned against courts interfering with policy decisions based on subjective assessments:

The judgment stated, “Judicial review cannot extend to rewriting recruitment policies framed by expert bodies. Courts lack the expertise to substitute their opinion for that of policymakers.”

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Allahabad University and its affiliated colleges. It set aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision, upholding the validity of Regulation 10(f)(iii) and its applicability to Assistant Professor recruitment. The writ petitions and special appeals filed by Respondent 1 were dismissed.

The Court observed, “Regulation 10(f)(iii) embodies a well-considered policy decision by the UGC to ensure quality teaching experience in higher education institutions. The High Court’s interference was unwarranted and exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review.”

Date of Decision: December 18, 2024