Aggrieved against the order, dated 06.09.2010 whereby, the petitioner's request for qualification approval was rejected on the ground that NET/SLET shall remain the minimum recruitment for appointment as lecturer in the respondent college, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
2. Pending the Writ Petition, when the issue was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2015) 8 SCC 129 (P.Suseela & Ors. V. University Grants Commission), while holding that the UGC Regulations prescribing NET/SLET/SET as minimum eligibility condition for appointment of Lecturers/Assistant Professors in higher educational institutions as valid, it has been held as follow:-
?16. Similar is the case on facts here. A vested right would arise only if any of the appellants before us had actually been appointed to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professors. Till that date, there is no vested right in any of the appellants. At the highest, the appellants could only contend that they have a right to be considered for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor. This right is always subject to minimum eligibility conditions, and till such time as the appellants are appointed, different conditions may be laid down at different times. Merely because an additional eligibility condition in the form of a NET test is laid down, it does not mean that any vested right of the appellants is affected, nor does it mean that the regulation laying down such minimum eligibility condition would be retrospective in operation. Such condition would only be prospective as it would apply only at the stage of appointment. It is clear, therefore, that the contentions of the private appellants before us must fail.
17. One of the learned counsel for the petitioners argued, based on the language of the direction of the Central Government, dated 12.11.2008 that all that the Government wanted UGC to do was to ?generally? prescribe NET as a qualification. But this did not mean that UGC had to prescribe this qualification without providing for any exemption. We are unable to accede to this argument for the simple reason that the word ?generally? precedes the word ?compulsory? and it is clear that the language of the direction has been followed both in letter and in spirit by the UGC Regulations of 2009 and 2010.
18. The argument based on
Article 14 equally have to be rejected. It is clear that the object of the directions of the Central Government read with the UGC Regulations of 2009/2010 are to maintain excellence in standards of higher education. Keeping this object in mind, a minimum eligibility condition of passing the national eligibility test is laid down. True, there may have been exemptions laid down by UGC. Obviously, there is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory in this ? in fact it is a core function of UGC to see that such standards do not get diluted.?
3. In view of the above finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the prayer sought for in the present writ petition cannot be considered. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner M.S.RAMESH,J.
jikr submits that the petitioner has not been paid any remuneration for the service rendered by her. It is needless to point out that if the petitioner is entitled for remuneration for the service rendered by her, it is for the respondents to consider the petitioner's request and the present order will not be an impediment for rejection of such request.
To
1.Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Rep. by its Registrar, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli-627 012.
2.The Secretary, Nesamony Memorial Christian College, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District- 629 165 .