Assistant Professor Appointment Upheld by Gauhati High Court: "Court Cannot Override Subject Expertise" as UGC Ph.D. Mandate Deferred Until 2023
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Gauhati High Court Single Bench of Justice Kardak Ete held that the exemption of a Ph.D. degree as a mandatory qualification for the post of Assistant Professor was validly extended under the UGC’s official notification dated 12 October 2021. The Court further recorded that where the subject expert and appointing authorities have accepted a candidate’s Ph.D. topic as conforming to the required specialization, the Court cannot substitute its view for that of academic authorities. The Court found no grounds for interference with the selection process or the appointment of the selected candidate and dismissed the writ petition in its entirety.
The petitioner challenged an appointment made to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Applied Geology at Dibrugarh University. The dispute arose out of Advertisement No. A-1/2022 dated 5 January 2022, which invited applications in accordance with the UGC Regulation, 2018 on minimum qualifications for teachers. The petitioner and respondent no. 6 were the only two candidates who appeared for the interview held on 15 October 2022.
The core claim of the petitioner was that the selected candidate, respondent no. 6, was not qualified as per the UGC Regulation, 2018 and the advertisement, which required a Ph.D. degree and specialization in Metamorphic Petrology, Geochronology, or Isotope Geochemistry. The petitioner contended that she held a Ph.D. degree as of 31 January 2022 and had completed research on Geochemistry and Metamorphic Petrology. She also held a National Eligibility Test certificate dated 19 November 2019.
The appointment of respondent no. 6 was made by order dated 27 October 2022. The petitioner argued that the appointment was illegal as respondent no. 6 did not possess a Ph.D. degree or the required specialization. It was also submitted that respondent no. 6 had not produced any research or qualification documents reflecting such specialization before the interview and therefore was not eligible to be considered.
In support of her case, the petitioner relied on two judgments of the Supreme Court: Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 54, and State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, (2012) 9 SCC 545, both of which affirmed that lack of eligibility at the time of application would render any appointment void.
Respondent authorities, through their counsel, submitted that respondent no. 6 was eligible as per the modified UGC guidelines. It was argued that the UGC had amended its 2018
Regulations to defer the mandatory requirement of a Ph.D. for appointment to Assistant Professor posts in universities until 1 July 2023. This change was published through a Gazette notification dated 11 October 2021. Accordingly, it was submitted that the appointment was within the legal framework.
It was further contended that the research topic of respondent no. 6, titled “Stable Carbon Isotope study,” was related to Isotope Geochemistry, and this had been accepted by the subject expert committee. Counsel for respondent no. 6 submitted that both candidates were found eligible and were permitted to appear for the interview, following which the selection committee found respondent no. 6 more meritorious.
The Court recorded that the petitioner and respondent no. 6 were the only two candidates who had participated in the interview for the post. The selection committee had chosen respondent no. 6 on the basis of merit. The appointment was made by order dated 27 October 2022.
The High Court summarised the grounds of challenge as twofold: first, the absence of a Ph.D. degree, and second, the lack of specialization in the required field. Referring to the advertisement, the Court stated: “A candidate must have the specialization in Metamorphic Petrology/Geochronology/Isotope Geochemistry.”
It was admitted that the petitioner had obtained her Ph.D. degree on 31 January 2022, after the last date for submission of applications. Her specialization was in Isotope Geochemistry and Geochronology. Respondent no. 6 had not obtained a Ph.D. degree but her research work on “Stable Carbon Isotope and Palynostratigraphy of Barail Group in parts of Fold-Thrust Belt of Nagaland” was claimed to fall within the category of Isotope Geochemistry.
Regarding this claim, the Court observed: “The respondent No.6 has specialization in Isotope Geochemistry as reflected in her Ph.D topic i.e. Stable Carbon Isotope study.”
The Court held that once the subject expert and university authorities had determined that the topic aligned with the required specialization, it was not for the Court to adopt a contrary view. It stated: “It would not be appropriate for this Court to have a different view with regard to Specialization as the Court do not have the expertise on the subject.”
On the requirement of a Ph.D., the Court referred to the UGC communication dated 12 October 2021, which deferred the enforcement of the Ph.D. requirement to 1 July 2023. The Court recorded: “The requirement of Ph.D degree has been done away, and the same was notified in Gazette on 11.10.2021.” It further observed that both the petitioner and respondent no. 6 did not hold a Ph.D. as of the last date for submission of the application and were allowed to participate in the interview accordingly.
With respect to the Supreme Court precedents cited, the Court distinguished them on factual and legal grounds. Regarding Ashok Kumar Sonkar, the Court stated: “The case pertains to determination of eligibility condition with regard to educational qualification qua the cut-off date, which is completely different from the present case.” On Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, the Court recorded that the candidate there did not meet the basic qualification criteria, unlike the present case where the eligibility was relaxed via amendment.
The Court concluded: “The grounds set forth by the petitioner are unjustified and cannot be accepted and as such, no interference is called for either to the selection process or to the consequential appointment order.”
The Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that both legal and factual foundations of the petitioner’s case lacked merit. It recorded: “This Court finds no infirmity in the selection process and consequential appointment of the respondent No.6 as Assistant Professor in Applied Geology.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. Bhuyan, Mr. N. Islam, Ms. A. Kalita
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Mazumdar, Mr. U. Sarma, P. Bora, K. Kalita, Mr. H. Bezbarua
Case Title: Dr. Dimple Doley v. The Dibrugarh University and 5 Others
Neutral Citation: GAHC010221802022
Case Number: WP(C) No. 7030 of 2022
Bench: Justice Kardak Ete
[Read/Download order]
