IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 141 of 2011 (S/B) Dr. Amitendra Singh ………. Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Open University & others. ..………. Respondents Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent No. 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) In the advertisement, it was indicated that the applicants, responding to the advertisement, must possess appropriate qualifications as have been prescribed by University Grants Commission. According to the prescription of University Grants Commission, a candidate should be deemed to be eligible when he has a good Post Graduation plus NET / SLET. NET / SLET will not be a requirement when the candidate has a Ph.D. degree, which he has obtained on 31st May, 2009 or prior thereto. Petitioner did not have Ph.D. degree nor did he have NET qualification. He responded to the advertisement. While, thus, responding, he made it clear that he has SLET qualification, which he has obtained from the State of Uttar Pradesh. By the order impugned, it has been held out that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification. Hence, the present writ petition. 2. At our request, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University has brought to our notice appropriate information downloaded by his client from the website of University Grants Commission, a printed copy whereof is kept with the record, wherefrom it appears that SLET qualification is recognised in the State from where the SLET qualification has been obtained. In such view of the matter, petitioner, having SLET qualification from the State of Uttar Pradesh, cannot be held to be an 2 appropriate SLET qualification holder making the petitioner eligible for being appointed in the State of Uttarakhand. 3. In the writ petition, petitioner has contended that he got himself registered for obtaining Ph.D. degree in the year 2004 and that he has obtained Ph.D. degree in 2010. It is the contention of the petitioner that University Grants Commission, at its meeting held on 27th September, 2010, has decided that if a candidate has registered himself for Ph.D. degree on or before 10th July, 2009 and is, subsequently, awarded Ph.D. degree, such a candidate would not be required to have NET / SLET to become eligible for being appointed. Petitioner has brought to our notice a copy of the said resolution of University Grants Commission. It is the contention of the petitioner that, in such situation, petitioner should be deemed to be qualified. In terms of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), University Grants Commission is entitled to make regulations, specifying the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instructions. In such view of the matter, statutorily, a person, having qualifications as prescribed in such regulations, can, alone, be treated to be eligible for being appointed. That being the situation, petitioner cannot be said to be eligible for having had registered himself for Ph.D. degree in the year 2004 and obtaining the Ph.D. degree in 2010, only on the basis of the said decision of University Grants Commission, inasmuch as, the same has not been incorporated in a regulation to be published under Section 26 of the said Act. 4. In those circumstances, we are unable to hold that the contention raised by the respondent / University that the petitioner does not have basic eligibility, to be considered for appointment, can be questioned. 5. Petitioner has drawn our attention to the decision of the University that they will wait till such regulation is published until the date of the 3 interview. We think that the said decision may not hold good, inasmuch as, the University, itself, has prescribed that there shall be a written examination, which has already been held yesterday. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the word ‘interview’ must be construed as the written examination. In order to avoid confusion, we make it clear that inasmuch as such a regulation was not made in terms of Section 26 of the said Act, there is no scope of considering for the appointment in question, any candidate, who does not have Ph.D. degree obtained on 31st May, 2009 or prior thereto. 6. The writ petition, thus, stands dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 20.06.2011 20.06.2011 G