UGC Regulation On Selection Committee For Appointment Of Assistant Professor Not Applicable To Minority Institutions: Madras High Court

Justice RN Manjula noted that since the selection committee includes outsiders, giving them the power to select the appointees for the post of Assistant Professors would amount to interfering with the administration of the minority institution. The court added that the administration of the affairs of the institution cannot be given in the hands of outsiders.

“The members of the selection committee includes the outsiders. By inducting them and giving them the power to select the appointees for the minority institution would amount to allowing them to interfere with the administration of the minority institutions. As the appointment of teachers is an administrative function over which the minority institutions have got their own autonomy, it can not be given in the hands of the outsiders in the name of a selection committee. What cannot be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly as well,” the court observed.

The court also observed that mandating the UGC regulation of selection committees to these institutions would interfere with their autonomous status. The court thus noted that the selection of faculties in minority institutions could not be compelled to be made through the selection committee contemplated in the UGC regulations.

“When one regulation of U.G.C. prescribes certain standards and autonomous status is conferred due to the compliance of the same, the other U.G.C regulation can not stultify the same. The regulation concerning selection committee can not be mandated against the minority institution as that will go counter-productive and self-contradictive to their well approved autonomous status,” the court said.

The court was hearing a batch of pleas filed by colleges in Madurai challenging the proceedings issued by Madurai Kamaraj University and directing the university to give qualification approval to the appointment of individuals as Assistant Professor in the respective colleges. The University had refused to grant approval stating that the appointments were made without forming a Selection Committee as per the UGC regulation 2018.

The petitioner colleges submitted that the University could not compel minority institutions to form a Selection Committee and the law in this regard has already been laid down in the case of The Forum of Minority Institutions and Associations Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and other. The petitioner submitted that in the above case, the court had already held that the UGC regulations were not applicable to minority institutions. Thus, the petitioners argued that the similar UGC 2018 regulation would also not be applicable to the institutions.

The court noted that the State's regulatory power over minority colleges is restricted to the prescription of qualification and the State could not have power over the prescription of methodoly of recruitment, constitution of selection committee, etc.

While the court noted that the quality of teachers appointed to these institutions had to be maintained, the court also noted that in the present case, it was not claimed that the persons appointed by the colleges lacked qualifications. The court noted that in the present case, the colleges themselves have come forward to seek qualification approval.

The court also noted that in the present case, the standard of the colleges was subjected to periodical scrutiny by members of the standing committee and only upon their recommendations, the conferment for extension of autonomy would be granted. The court thus noted that the conferment of autonomous status upon the colleges would give an implied approval for their quality and merit in the selection of the teachers and students of the institutions.

The court thus allowed the petitions filed by the colleges and directed the University to reconsider the applications of the colleges to grant qualification approval for the appointments made by the colleges without insisting on the selection committee procedure contemplated under UGC Regulation 2018.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Issac Mohanlal, Senior Advocate for M/s. Issac Chambers, M/s A. Amala

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.T.Amjad Khan, Government Advocate, Mr.M.Siddharthan, AGP, Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran, Standing counsel, Mr.Mahaboob Athiff, Mr.T.Amjadahan, GA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 368

Case Title: The Principal & Secretary v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Case No: W.P.(MD) No.20228 of 2023 batch