UGC Ph.D. Requirement For Promotions In Maharashtra Colleges Can't Be Applied Retrospectively: Bombay High Court

Background

A group of Assistant Professors in Maharashtra colleges were denied promotion due to the absence of a Ph.D. degree, despite meeting all qualifications and obtaining recommendations for promotion. These teachers were appointed in 2006 and 2007, long before the 2018 UGC regulations, which mandated a Ph.D. as a qualification for promotion. The petitioners argued that the newer 2018 regulations should not retroactively apply to their promotions, as they had already qualified under the 2016 regulations, which did not make a Ph.D. compulsory.

Upon the state government's adoption of the 2018 regulations through a resolution in March 2019, promotions were halted for faculty lacking a Ph.D. The University, having initially approved their promotions, had forwarded these for further validation, but the state Joint Director of Education ultimately withheld final approval, citing the updated regulations. The petitioners sought a declaration that their promotions should proceed under the 2016 regulations, which did not require a Ph.D. for advancement to Associate Professor.

Arguments

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, argued that they fulfilled the criteria under the 2016 UGC regulations. They contended that applying the 2018 regulations retroactively was unfair and not within the legislative intent of the UGC guidelines, which allowed discretion to apply older rules for those already in service. They also cited a recent UGC notification removing the contentious provision, arguing that this affirmed their position on non-retrospective application.

The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and UGC representatives, argued that the 2018 UGC regulations and corresponding 2019 government resolution explicitly mandated a Ph.D. for promotion, which was legally binding. Citing judgments emphasizing the central authority of UGC regulations over state policies, they argued that the petitioners' promotion claims were not valid without a Ph.D., as per the binding nature of the 2018 guidelines.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court observed that the 2018 UGC regulation and the corresponding government resolution of 2019 did not include any provision for retroactive application, establishing that new regulations generally operate prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise. This meant that the petitioners, who had been eligible for promotion under the 2016 standards, could not be held to the new Ph.D. requirement for advancement. Secondly, the court highlighted the principle that legislation imposing additional qualification criteria should not disrupt vested rights or legitimate expectations. Since the petitioners had received promotion recommendations from their university under the 2016 guidelines, they held a legitimate expectation for progression under those standards. Requiring a Ph.D. at this stage, according to the court, would constitute an undue hardship.

Thirdly, the court clarified that the petitioners were subject only to the qualification standards applicable at the time of their initial appointment and ongoing service, per UGC norms. It further noted that Regulation 2016 permitted consideration of alternative qualifications, with a Ph.D. only as an optional criterion to waive publication requirements, not as a standalone mandate for promotion. The court also rejected the respondents' reliance on other cases, such as Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar, where the conflict pertained to legislative supremacy between state and UGC regulations. The court distinguished this case, noting that the petitioners' scenario did not involve contradictory state legislation; rather, it was purely a matter of which UGC regulation applied.

Finally, the court underscored that any changes to the academic promotion criteria should prioritize continuity and fairness, especially in education sectors, where career progression impacts long-term teaching quality. As the 2016 regulation was the prevailing standard when the petitioners qualified for promotion, it held that any subsequent regulations should not impede their vested rights. Thus, the court directed the state's Joint Director of Education to re-evaluate the petitioners' promotion proposals under the 2016 regulations within six weeks, affirming that the 2018 UGC regulations and the 2019 government resolution mandating a Ph.D. would not apply to the petitioners' cases. The writ petitions were allowed partly.

Case title: Vijayamala Tanaji Ghuge & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 572

Counsel for Petitioners: Senior Advocate Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar

Counsel for Respondents: Shri S.P. Joshi, AGP for the State; Shri S.W. Munde for UGC

Click Here To Read/Download The Order