Qualifying NET Is Minimum Criteria For Asst Professor Extension Lecturer Holding M.Phil Has No Right To Continue: Punjab & Haryana HC

Update: 2025-03-06 15:45 GMT
Qualifying NET Is Minimum Criteria For Asst Professor Extension Lecturer Holding M.Phil Has No Right To Continue: Punjab & Haryana HC
  • whatsapp icon
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that extension lecturer holding M.Phil degree who have not qualified UGC NET has no right to continue in service and is required to be relieved from service.The Court noted that Service Rules, 1986, amended in terms of the UGC Regulations, 2010, do not provide for any exemption from NET to the M.Phil. degree holders for the post of...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that extension lecturer holding M.Phil degree who have not qualified UGC NET has no right to continue in service and is required to be relieved from service.

The Court noted that Service Rules, 1986, amended in terms of the UGC Regulations, 2010, do not provide for any exemption from NET to the M.Phil. degree holders for the post of Assistant Professor.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said, "once being ineligible the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed as Extension Lecturer in terms of the Policy guidelines, dated 04.03.2020/02.11.2023, he has no right to continue in service, and is required to be relieved/disengaged in terms therewith."

The Court was hearing a plea of a extension lecturer seeking quashing of the order, whereby the petitioner has been declared ineligible for appointment as Extension Lecturer in English. The Principal of Government College, Hodal, Palwal, where he is presently working, had directed to dispense with his services as per provisions of the 'Policy guidelines regarding engaging Eligible Extension Lecturers in Government Colleges purely on work requirement basis.

Gaurav Sorot, was awarded M.Phil. in English in June 2009 by Vinayaka Mission's Research Foundation (Deemed to be University). Pursuant to a decision taken by the Department, in 2013, to engage suitable/well qualified persons as Extension Lecturers, he was engaged by the Principal of the College on remuneration of `200 per lecture in terms thereof.

He continued in service with breaks, and on being finally relieved on 20.07.2017, approached this Court by filing a writ. In an interim order d, it was directed that he would not be replaced by another similarly situated person, and in case there was adequate workload, he would be allowed to continue without facing any interview till the next date of hearing. Hence Sarot, was allowed to continue for the time being.

The Department has framed the Policy guidelines for engaging Extension Lecturers, which is pari materia so far as provisions regarding eligibility and removal of the ineligible are concerned); clause 2 whereof prescribes that only such persons shall be engaged as Extension Lecturers who fulfill the qualification/eligibility as per the Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group 'B' Service Rules, 1986 (Service Rules, 1986) and non-qualified persons engaged by the Principals shall be removed after coming into force of this Policy. 

Sarot claimed eligibility for the post of Assistant Professor on the basis of a decision taken by the UGC in its meeting dated 27.09.2010, exempting the persons who have obtained M.Phil. prior to 11.07.2009 from the requirement of clearing NET.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that as per qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor under the Service Rules, 1986, NET is the minimum eligibility condition for appointment as such in Government Colleges.

Only those candidates who have been awarded Ph.D. degree in compliance of the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedures for Award of Ph.D. degree), Regulations 2009 ('the UGC Ph.D. Regulations, 2009'), are exempted from the requirement of clearing NET, it added.

Rejecting petitioner's contention, the judge said that, "on instructions received from the second respondent vide memo dated 07.02.2025, that the UGC minutes dated 27.09.2010 were never notified, nor adopted by the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the fact, nor has any document to the contrary been placed on record."

Reliance was also placed on Rashmi Gera and others v. State of Haryana and others, wherein the High Court decided the similar issue.

In light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Title: Gaurav Sorot v. State of Haryana and others

Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 108

Click here to read/download the order 

Tags:    

Similar News