ft-F^ 'as,c-«-<i. ^-oc?-.e. DIVISION BENCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK D.R. DESHM ITI LR r,P.No.475eof2006 V.K. Singh Son of Late Shri S.P. Singh, aged about 29 years, Resident of Qr. No. 8-C, Street No.1, Sector-7, Bhi!ainagar, Disfrtet Durg (C.G.) iSPQNDENTS Union of India, Through : The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi Universify Grant Commission, Through : The Secretary, Bahadaur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - Present: Shri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhishma Kinger, iearned counsei for the respondents. ORALORDER fPassed on ^September, 2006) The following orai order of the Court was passed by The University Grant Commission, the 2 respondent herain by tesuing Notification F No. 1-1/2002(PS) Exemp., dated 14-06-2006 substituted the following para: "NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer for those wiih post- iraduate degree. However, the candidates having Ph.D. degree in the concemed subject are exempted from NET for PG level and UG tevel teaching. The candidates having M. Phil degree in She concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching only." in place ofthe foltowing para: "NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph.D. degree. Howsver, the candidates who have compieted M.Phii degree or have submittad Ph.D thesi-s in the concemed subject upto 31!st -i.- December, 1993 are exempted from appearing in the NET examination." The constitutiona! validity of the substituted provision is assaifed in this wit petition. The substituted provisfon is a piece of delegated tegislation made by the 2 respondent. The validity of a delegated legisiation couid be assailed on!y on certain grounds, such as, it is violative of Part lit of She Constitution of !ndia or other provisions of the Constitution; it is in excess of the power granted by the parent Act or violative of any of the prov'isions of the parent Act or the mandatory procedure made by the parent Act with regard to making of delegated tegislation was not adhered to by the de!egate etc. None of those grounds are urged in this case except contending that the Impugned substituted provision vio'ates Artfcle 14 postulates. !n other words, as per the iearned counse! for the petitioner, the substituted provision is totally arbitrary, unrsasonabte and it has no nexus with the object to be achieved. On the other hand, It was contended, NET being a retevant c!assification for any teacher, there was absoiutely no good reason for the 2 respondent fo give preference to those holding Ph. D. or M. Phi! degree by exempting them from possessing NET qualification as an eligibitity criteria for appointment to the post of Lecturers. The powsr of the 2 respondent to prescribe and or to amend the prescription of eiigibility criteria in terms of age qualification, academic qualification and other quaiifications cannot be questioned. In fact that was not questioned in this writ petition. A short question that falis for decision-making is whether the 2 respondent in classifying the degres holders into two categorfes, viz., the possessing Ph.D. / M.Phi! degrees and the candidates possessing msrely postgraduate degrees has vsolated the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is true that the guarantee of equal protection embraces the entire realm of State 91 action and therefore, in prescribing the educationai qualifications, the 2 respondent is required to adhere to that constitutional obligation, but, at the same time it is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that the principte of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application for al! persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstences in the same position, as the varying needs of different class of persons often require separate treatment. !t is also well settted that what Article 14 prohibits is c!ass legislation and not reasonabte classification for the purpose of tegislation. If the Legislature takes care to reasonab'y classify persons for legislative purposes and if it deats equally with all persons belonging to a 'wel', deffned class', it is not open to the charge of denia! of equal protection on the ground that the law does not apply to other persons. In the premise of this well settled position of aw, we are of the considered opinion that the candidates having Ph. D. degree / M.Phil degree and the candidates having merely Post Graduate degree could not be regarded as persons belonging to the 'wa" defined class' so as to attract the wrath Article 14 postulates. They are different by nature, experience and length of studies too. Therefore, dassification made by the 2" respondent for the purpose of treating them differently cou!d not be condemned as the one which cannot stand the scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is discernible rationale behind exempting the candidates having Ph. D. degree and M. Phil degree from acquisition of NET as a prerequisite qualification/eligibility criteria for applying to the post of Lecturers. In that visw of the matter, the contention urged by the learned counse! for the petitioner to assai! the constitutional validity of the impugned provision is not acceptable to us and the same is rejected. No •^- other point was urged before us to the impugned provision. The writ accordingjy disniissed. Sd/- ChiefJustice the constjtutional vafidify of iiion i-s devoid of merit and it is Sd/- Oiiip Raosaheb Deshmukh judge l^tn