IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.3.2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN W.P.Nos.37000 of 2006, 37021 of 2006, 37022 of 2006, 32958 of 2006, 36972 of 2006, 39366 of 2006, 40388 of 2006, 40995 of 2006, 41000 of 2006, 41001 of 2006, W.P.(MD).Nos.9279 of 2006, 9806 of 2006 and 9454 OF 2006 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 in W.P.No.37000 of 2006, M.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2006 in W.P.No.37021 of 2006, M.P.No.2 of 2006 in W.P.No.37022 of 2006, M.P.No.2 of 2006 in W.P.No.32958 of 2006, M.P.Nos.1,2 and 3 of 2006 in W.P.No.36972 of 2006, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 in W.P.Nos.39366 of 2006, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 in W.P.No.40388 of 2006, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 in W.P.No.40995 of 2006, M.P.No.2 of 2006 in W.P.No.41001 of 2006, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 in W.P.(MD)No.9279 of 2006, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 in W.P.(MD).No.9806 of 2006 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 in W.P.(MD)No.9454 of 2006 K.Sathyamurthi ..Petitioner in W.P.37000/06 D.S. Makkalanban ..Petitioner in W.P.37021/06 A. Sankara Gomathy ..Petitioner in W.P.37022/06 K. Sathyamurthi ..Petitioner in W.P.32958/06 N. Thirumalai ..Petitioner in W.P.36972/06 R. Umadevi ..Petitioner in W.P.39366/06 Association of NTE/SET qualified Teachers and Candidates (Regd. under the Societies Registration Act) rep by its President Mr.E. Sugirthakumar No. 85 Pilliayar Koil St,Kattor Ram Nagar, Coimbatore ..Petitioner in W.P.40388/06 N. Sailapathi ..Petitioner in W.P.40995/06 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.G. Sinthiah 2.A. Shanmugam 3.M. Karuppiah 4.D. Anbalagan 5.A. Guljarbanu 6.M.S. Selvaraju 7.S. Dharmaraj 8.V. Bala Subramanian 9.V. Ganesan 10.G. Pushparaju ..Petitioner in W.P.41000/06 and W.P.41001/06 V. Mohandass Ravi ..Petitioner in W.P.9279/06 M. Arumugam ..Petitioner in W.P.9806/06 T. Bhaskar ..Petitioner in W.P.9454/06 vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. ... Ist Respondent in W.P.Nos.37000, 39366, 40388, 40995/06 , 9279/06, 9806/06 & 9454/06 and 3rd Respondent in W.Ps.37021, 32958 and 36972/06 2.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, D.P.I.Compound, Chennai 600 006. ... 2nd Respondent in W.P.Nos. 37022, 40388, 40995, 41000/06 and W.P. 9806/06,41001/06 3rd Respondent in W.Ps.9279/06 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.University Grants Commission, Rep. by its Chairman, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 022. ..ISt Respondents in W.Ps. 37021, 32958 and 36972/06 3rd Respondent in W.P.40995/06 W.P. 9806 and 9454/06, 4th Respondent in W.P.40388/06, W.P.9279/06 The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Secretary Education Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9. ... ISt Respondent in W.P.Nos. 37022, 41000 and 41001/06 Union of India rep by its Secretary to Government Ministry of Human Resources Development Department, New Delhi. ... 2nd Respondent in W.Ps. 37021/06, 32958, and 36972/06 4. M. Prabhakar 5. K.S. Ganesh Sundaram 6. K.S. Nagarajan 7. Y. Joha Ilavarasu 8. M. Avinash 9. P. Jeevagan 10. S. Ramkumar 11. P. Devi Sri 12. J. Sujatha 13. S. Sivakumar (R4 to R13 impleaded as per order of Court dated 25.9.2006 in M.P.No.3/06 in W.P.No. 32958/06) ... Respondents 4 to 13 in W.P.NO.32958/06 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, D.P.I. Compound, Chennai. ... 2nd Respondent in W.P.39366 and W.P.9279/06, 3rd Respondent in 40388/06 and W.P.41000 and 41001/06 The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep by its Member Secretary EVK Sampath Building College Road, Chennai-6 ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No. 39366/06 The Registrar University of Madras Chepauk Campus Chepauk, Chennai-5 ... 4th Respondent in W.P.No.40995/06 The Secretary Teachers Recruitment Board E.V.K. Sampath Malligai, D.P.I. Compound Chennai-6. ... 2nd Respondent in W.P.9454/06 Writ Petition No.37000/2006 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus 1. calling for the proceedings culminating in notification issued by the 2nd respondent in Advt.No.4/2006-07 dated 18.9.2006 published in Tamil Daily, Dinakaran on 18.9.2006 pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.197, Higher Education (F2) Dept, dated 5.7.2006 proposing to recruit lecturers for appointment in Government Arts and Science colleges and Colleges of Education and the prospectus prescribing the qualification and the Scheme of selection and quash the same and direct the respondents to conduct written examination and select the candidates by giving preference to the candidates having PG degree with NET/SLET for the post of Lecturers in Govt.Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Writ of Certiorari call for the proceedings of the ISt Respondent made in F.No.1-1/2002 (P-S) Exempt dated 14.6.2006 and quash the notification dated 14.6.2006. (W.P.Nos. 37021, 32958 and 36972/06) 3. to call for the records in connection with the notification of (2006-2007) issued by the 2nd respondent portion of para 11 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as lecturer in (Zoology) in W.P. 37022/06) 4. Writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the proceedings of the ISt respondent issued in G.O.Ms.No. 197 Higher Education (F2) Department dated 5.7.2006 and the consequential notification issued by the 2nd respondent in Advt. No.4/06-07 dated 18.9.2006 published in Tamil Daily Dinakaran on 18.9.06 proposing to recruit Lecturer for appointment in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education and the prospectus prescribing the qualification and the scheme of selection and quash the same and direct the respondents to conduct written Examination and select the candidates by giving preference to the candidates having P.G. Decree with NET/SLET for the Post of Lecturer in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education (W.P.40388/06) Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the ISt Respondent in G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 5.7.2006 issued by the ISt respondent and quash the same. (W.P.No.40995/06) 5. Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the ISt respondent pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.197 Higher Education (F2) Department dated 5.7.2006 and quash the clause 6 (e) of the above G.O. (W.P.9279/06) and 6. Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 5.7.2006 issued by the Ist Respondent and the Prospectus (2006-2007) issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the para 6 clause (e) in G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 5.7.2006 of the ISt respondent and para 11 of the Prospectus of the 2nd respondent (W.P.9454/06) respectively. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to award marks for waiting in the employment exchange after registration of qualification by the Petitioner as per Rule 7 of Procedures of selection prescribed by the Government of Tamilnadu the Teachers Recruitment Board in G.O.Ms.No.1223 dated 12.7.88 and G.O.Ms.No.477 dated 4.5.89 and add the same immediately after merit lists is evolved and issue a further direction to the respondents to call the candidates for interview for selection tot he post of Lecturer in Mathematics in Government Colleges at the ratio of 1:3 vacancies as per the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reported in 1994 Supreme Court page 2166 and select and appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in Government Colleges (W.P.No.39366/06) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying this Court to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that clause 11 of the Prospectus for the direct recruitment of Lecturer for Government Arts and Science Colleges of Education 2006-2007 issued by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as arbitrary unjust and violating of Article 14 of the constitution of India so far as the Petitioners are concerned (W.P.41000/06) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to give due weightage to the Employment Exchange registration Seniority and persons who possessed M. Phil qualification prior to 1993 without imposing the condition of requirement of National Eligibility Test/State Level Education to the Post of Lecturer in the Government Arts And Science Colleges and Colleges of Education (W.P.NO.41001/06) Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No.197 Higher Education (F2) Department dated 5.7.2006 issued by the first respondent and quash the same. (W.P.NO.9806/06) Mr.R. Muthukumarasamy (SC) for Mr.R.Bharath Kumar Counsel for Petitioner in W.P.No.37000/2006, 32958/06 , 40388/06 Mr.M.V. Krishnan, Counsel for Petitioner in W.P.40995/06 Mr.P. Viswanathankakkan for Petitioner in W.P.37021/06, 36972/06 Mr.S. Ilamvaludhi for Petitioner in W.P.37022/06 Mr.S. Silambannan for M/s. Gladys Daniel in WPs.41000, 41001/06 Mr. Saseedharan Counsel for Petitioner in W.P.39366/06 Mr.R. Subramanian, Counsel for Petitioner in W.P.9279/06 Mr.D. Saravanan in W.P.9806/06 Mr.A. Sankara Subramanian in W.P.9454/06 Mr.R. Viduthalai A.G. for Mr.Mohan Spl. G.P. (Edun.) for the State in each petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.R. Krishnamurthi (SC) for Mr.P.R. Gopinthan for R3 in W.P.37000/06 RR1 & 2 in W.P.37021/06, 32958/06, 36972/06 R4 in W.P.40388/06 R3 in W.P.40995/06, 9806/06, 9454/06 R4 in W.P.9279/06 COMMON ORDER F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J. In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners seek to challenge the prospectus issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board in Advertisement No.4/2006-07 published in Tamil Daily `Dinakaran' dated 18.9.2006 pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.197, Higher Education (F2) Dept, dated 5.7.2006. Under the above referred to G.O., as well as the notification the respondents proposed to recruit Lecturers for appointment in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education. 2. In W.P.No.32958/2006 the petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings of the University Grants Commission made in F.No.1-1/2002 (PS) Exemp dated 14.6.2006 and quash the said notification dated 14.6.2006. That was a notification by which an amendment was issued by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as `U.G.C.') to the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment of Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulation, 2000. The amendment was to the effect, "NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer for those with post-graduate degree. However, the candidates having Ph.D.degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG level and UG level teaching. The candidates having M.Phil degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching only." It was pursuant to the above amendment to the U.G.C. Regulations, the impugned notification in G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 5.7.2006 as well as the Advt.No.4/2006-07 dated 18.9.2006 for recruitment of Lecturers in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education came to be issued by the State Government. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. In W.P.No.32958/2006 the main challenge is that the amendment exempting Ph.D. from NET and SLET for all P.G. and U.G. courses and M.Phil for U.G. courses was irrational and is contrary to the well settled principle set down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as regards the possession of NET or SLET as reported in AIR 1995 SC 336(UNIVERSITY OF DELHI v. RAJ SINGH). In view of the challenge made to the said amendment to the U.G.C.Regulations the petitioners in other writ petitions who seek to challenge the Advt.No.4/2006- 07 apart from the basic challenge as regards the exemption granted to Ph.D. and M.Phil from holding NET or SLET as provided in the amendment to the U.G.C.Regulations have also made the challenge on other grounds, namely, weightage marks awarded to holders of Ph.D and M.Phil with or without NET or SLET. 4. In W.P.No.39366/2006 the challenge is also on the ground that contrary to the procedure rules prescribed for recruitment to be made by the Teachers Recruitment Board no weightage for Employment Exchange registered candidates who were not able to secure any employment till this date has been provided. 5. The main arguments on behalf of the petitioners was made by Shri R.Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.32958/2006 and 40388/2006. In the course of his submissions the learned senior counsel contended that as early as in the year 1991 the prescription of NET or SLET as an added qualification for the post of Lecturer came to be introduced in the U.G.C.Regulations which was the subject matter of challenge before the Delhi High Court and on dismissal by the said High Court the matter went before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court in the decision reported in AIR 1995 SC 336(UNIVERSITY OF DELHI V. RAJ SINGH). By referring to paragraph 9 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned senior counsel contended that the prescription of possession of NET or SLET was found to be a very essential eligibility criteria for the post of Lecturer even in respect of M.Phil and Ph.D.qualified candidates. According to the learned counsel, by way of amendment to the 1991 Regulations, once in 1995, 1998, 2000 and 2002 some relaxation was shown by U.G.C., itself in respect of holders of M.Phil and Ph.D. candidates. The learned counsel pointed out that in the 1995 amendment possession of NET and SLET was exempted for those who passed M.Phil and Ph.D. prior to 31.12.93, that in the amendment of the year 2000 the exemption was modified to the effect that the Ph.D. candidates upto the year 2000 were also granted the said benefit which was subsequently extended for the year upto 2002 insofar as Ph.D. holders alone. By referring to the above amendments and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the present action of the U.G.C. in once and for all exempting the Ph.D.holders from possessing NET or SLET for P.G. and U.G. courses and the M.Phil candidates for U.G.course was made without any basis and thereby unsettled the settled proposition of law held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. The learned senior counsel by referring to the interim report of the Committee constituted by the U.G.C., dated 3.4.2006 contended that the said report did not contain any reason for making its recommendations to grant the exemption for Ph.D. and M.Phil. degree holders based on which the amendment came to be made in the U.G.C. regulations on 14.6.2006. The learned senior counsel therefore contended that the amendment dated 14.6.2006 is liable to be set aside. 7. Alternatively, the learned senior counsel contended that the grant of weightage marks in the impugned G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 5.7.2006 and the consequential Advt.No.4/2006-07 dated 18.9.2006 were irrational, arbitraty and has no nexus to the object to be achieved and therefore, the said notification as well as the advertisement are liable to be set aside. Elaborating the submission the learned senior counsel contended that under the G.O., while seeking for recruitment the State Government wanted to assess the merits of the candidates merely going by the certificates without holding any written examinations. The learned senior counsel after referring to the weightage marks prescribed in the G.O., as well as the prospectus submitted that by merely granting marks for holders of Ph.D.degree and M.Phil degree they would gain a march over all other candidates and thereby all equals would be treated unequally and thereby, depriving the members of the petitioner association who are Post-graduate degree holders with NET or SLET from getting a fair treatment in the matter of selection. To demonstrate the absurd results that are likely to occur based on the weightage marks provided under the G.O., the learned senior counsel pointed out that in paragraph 6(e) of G.O.Ms.No.197, dated 5.7.2006 apart from marks provided for experience, the marks provided for possessing different qualifications will result in total exclusion of other P.G. candidates who possess NET or SLET. According to the learned senior counsel, irrespective of a candidate securing the highest marks for research contribution, books and articles published as well as in the interview, having regard to the high level of marks allocated for mere possession of Ph.D. qualification, M.Phil qualification and such persons possessing SLET or NET would totally deprive the P.G. candidates with SLET OR NET outside the scope of selection. The learned senior counsel also pointed out that the subsequent notification dated 11.8.2006 in making an amendment to para 6(e) of the earlier notification dated 5.7.2006 would also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ result in similar disadvantage to the P.G.degree holders with NET or SLET and therefore, such amendments also does not cure the material defects in the impugned notification by way of executive order. 8. The learned senior counsel relied upon the decisions reported in 2006 (10) SCC 1 (RELIANCE AIRPORT DEVELOPERS (P) LTD., v. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS), AIR 1995 SC 336 (UNIVERSITY OF DELHI v. RAJ SINGH), 1996 (6) SCC 282 (SECY.(HEALTH) DEPTT. OF HEALTH & F.W. AND ANOTHER v. Dr.ANITA PURI AND OTHERS) and 2003 (5) SCC 341 (SECY., A.P.PUBLIC SERVICE COMMN. v. Y.V.V.R.SRINIVASULU) in support of his submissions. 9. The sum and substance of the submissions of the learned senior counsel is that when possession of P.G.qualification with M.Phil or Ph.D. is the eligibility criteria to apply for the post of Lecturer in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education, the provision of weightage marks for possession of Ph.D. and M.Phil alone or with NET or SLET would amount to equals being treated unequally and thereby, calling for interference with the said impugned proceedings in these writ petitions. 10. Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9279/2006 while adopting the arguments of Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, also contended that when once a basic qualification prescribing the eligibility to apply is prescribed any weightage for additional qualification cannot be made. According to the learned counsel under the U.G.C.Regulations of 2000 procedure has been prescribed under para 3.1.0 as to how recruitment should be made by way of selection for the post of Lecturer in Government Colleges and that as per the said procedure when selection committee is constituted the process of selection should involve only the assessment of aptitude for teaching and research, ability to communicate clearly and effectively and ability to analyse and discuss and that the prescription of weightage marks would be contrary to the U.G.C.Regulations and therefore, on this ground, as well the impugned notification of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 5.7.2006 as well as the Advt.No.4/2006-07 are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in 2006 (6) SCC 474(STATE OF U.P. V. OM PRAKASH)in support of his submission. 11. Mr.S.Silambanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.41000 and 41001 of 2006 submitted that clause 11 of the prospectus issued, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.197 prescribing weightage marks are liable to be set aside inasmuch as when once the U.G.C., held that M.Phil holders who secured the said degree prior to 31.12.93 need not possess SLET or NET to apply for the post of Lecturer, the weightage of marks for M.Phil holders https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with NET or SLET would cause grave injustice to such M.Phil candidates who do not possess NET or SLET. 12. Mr.R.Saseetharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.39366/2006 was aggrieved insofar as the notification did not provide weightage marks for candidates who registered themselves with Employment Exchange and who were not able to secure any employment in the State. According to the learned counsel, the procedure Rules of Teachers Recruitment Board provides for award of weightage marks depending upon the number of years of waiting after the registration in the Employment Exchange with a maximum of 8 marks and the non-provision of such weightage marks in the G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 5.7.2006 or the Advt.No.4/2006-07 and the prospectus relating to the said advertisement being contrary to the procedure rules are liable to be interfered with. According to the learned counsel when once by G.O.Ms.No.1357 dated 26.9.90 the State Government decided to entrust the task of selection of candidates for the post of Lecturers with the Teachers Recruitment Board by reconstituting the Board, the procedure rules relating to Teachers Recruitment Board would automatically apply and therefore, the prescription of weightage marks for the candidates registered with the Employment Exchange ought to have been made. 13. Mr.V.Viswanathan Kakkan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.36972 and 37021/2006 while adopting the arguments of the other learned counsel contended that the petitioners passed M.Phil with NET which is more or less like a degree conferred by the Universities and therefore, due recognition should have been granted for holders of NET or SLET. The learned counsel therefore contended that the dilution of the qualification for the post of Lecturers for the candidates who do not possess NET or SLET would create serious impact upon the rights of the petitioners and therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 14. The other learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the other writ petitions adopted the arguments of Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel and other learned counsel. 15. As against the above submissions, the learned Advocate General Mr.R.Vidhuthalai, representing the State Government as well as Teachers Recruitment Board, the second respondent formulated his submissions on three aspects, namely, (i)The comparative weightage of marks given to various academic qualifications, eligibility criteria, intellectual pursuits and teaching experience is neither https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ arbitrary nor discriminatory and do not offend Articles 14 or 16. (ii)The challenge to the Notification issued by U.G.C. is liable to be rejected in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.21345/06 dated 10.07.2006. (iii)The weightage of marks given to Ph.D. qualification is appropriate and commensurate with the academic excellence attached to such high qualification. 16. According to the learned Advocate General, Ph.D. qualification being a higher qualification than M.Phil or P.G. qualification, there is nothing wrong in giving higher weightage marks for passing of such qualification. It was also contended by the learned Advocate General that under the U.G.C.Regulations by way of career advancement programme whenever the Lecturer beyond the Selection Grade would aspire for the post of `Reader', the prescribed qualification being Ph.D., in the interest of the students it was desirable to go in for the candidates with Ph.D. as that would enable the State to organise its educational pattern more effectively in the interest of the students. Therefore, the learned Advocate General contended that the prescription of higher marks for Ph.D. holders cannot be found fault with. The learned Advocate General also contended that even as per the U.G.C.Regulations, 1998 there is no prescription for holding a written examination and that the selection for the post of Lecturers have to be made only by a duly constituted selection committee and therefore, the non-prescription of the written examination would not vitiate the impugned notification as well as the prospectus and advertisement. 17. In this context, learned Advocate General relied upon G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 24.3.99 wherein the procedure for recruitment and the prescription of qualifications have been set out in line with the U.G.C.Regulations. According to the learned Advocate General, G.O.Ms.No.1357 dated 26.9.90 is applicable only for recruitment of school teachers of the Government schools and the schools run by local bodies which is not applicable to a selection made for the post of Lecturers in Government Arts and Science colleges and Colleges of Education. 18. As far as the challenge made in W.P.No.32958/2006 to the U.G.C. amendment dated 14.6.2006, the learned Advocate General contended that having regard to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 10.7.2006 passed in W.P.No.21345/2006 upholding the said notification the challenge to the very same notification cannot be made in the present writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 19. The learned Advocate General therefore submitted that no interference is called for. 20. Mr.R.Krishnamurthi, learned senior counsel appearing for the U.G.C. mainly contended that in the light of the earlier order of this Court dated 10.7.2006 passed in W.P.No.21435/2006 the writ petition challenging the impugned letter of the U.G.C. dated 14.6.2006 cannot be maintained. 21. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the materials. 22. At the outset while dealing with the challenge made in W.P.No.32958/2006 we find that the challenge to the very same notification of the U.G.C. came up for consideration before the First Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21435/2006. The writ petition was dismissed by the First Bench in its order dated 10.7.2006. After referring to the notification details contained in the notification dated 14.6.2006 the First Bench has held as under: "As per the above amended regulation, the candidates having Ph.D. degree in the concerned subject are exempted from appearing for the National Eligibility Test for appointment to the PG and UG level teaching posts. In our opinion, the writ petition cannot be entertained at the instance of the petitioner, as she is not a candidate either affected or likely to be affected by the amended regulation