G.S. Singhvi. J.

1. This petition has been filed to quash Annexure P-6 and Annexure P-7 which contain the decision of the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereafter referred to as the Commission) to reject the claim of the petitioner to be considered for appointment as Lecturer in English.

2. The petitioner passed her Matric and B.A. with 1st Division. She passed M.A. (English) with 58.4.% marks. In the year 1988, she was selected for appointment as Lecturer in English in Chhotu Ram Arya College, Sonepat by a duly constituted Selection Committee, which among others consisted of nominees of the Vice Chancellor, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and the Director, Higher Education, Haryana. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 17.10.1988 against a permanent post. In response to advertisement Annexure P-5 issued by the Commission for recruitment to the post of Lecturer (English) (College Cadre), the petitioner submitted her application. Apprehending that her candidature may not be considered on the pretext that she has not passed the eligibility test, the petitioner made representation Annexure P6 to the Secretary of the Commission but the Commission has refused to consider the claim of the petitioner as would appear from the impugned communication Annexure P7. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Commission not to consider the candidature on the ground that the University Grants Commission has already relaxed the requirement of eligibility test in cases of persons who are serving as Lecturers on permanent basis after regular selection by a duly constituted selection committee, and, therefore, respondents 1 and 2 are not justified in rejecting her candidature for the post of Lecturer (English).

3. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, the State of Haryana, it has been pleaded that as per notification dated 19.9.1991 which enumerates the qualifications required for various teaching posts and which has been accepted by the State Government, no candidate who has not passed the eligibility test can be considered for recruitment to the post of Lecturer and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right to be considered for recruitment as Lecturer. This respondent has pleaded that the decision taken by the University Grants Commission in its meeting held on 14.2.1995 cannot be treated as binding in view of the fact that the same has not been notified in terms of Section 14 read with Section 26(1) (a) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short the Act). Reliance has been placed by respondent State of Haryana on a decision of this Court in C.W.P. No. 11654 of 1993 (Gillu Ram Sangwan v. State of Haryana and others) to support its plea that the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for recruitment to the post of Lecturer.

4. In its separate reply, the Commission has stated that rules, regulations and decisions of the University Grants Commission are not binding on it and only the rules and regulations framed and notified by the State Government are required to be followed. According to the Commission, the petitioner does not fulfil the conditions of eligibility and, therefore, she has no right to be considered for selection to the post of Lecturer.

5. On behalf of the University Grants Commission, more than one affidavits have been filed. In the first affidavit dated 8.2.1996 filed in the form of short reply by Shri D.B. Singh, Under Secretary, University Grants Commission, it has been stated that as per the decision taken in its 347th meeting, the University Grants Commission revised the minimum qualifications for appointment of Lecturers and a candidate who is appointed on the recommendations of a duly constituted committee before September, 1991 is eligible for the post of Lecturer without fulfilling the qualifications prescribed in the Regulations of 1991. It has also been stated that the revised qualifications were sent to the Director of Higher Education, Haryana vide letter dated 22.11.1995. In the affidavit dated April 9, 1996 filed by Dr. Pankaj Mittal, Deputy Secretary, University Grants Commission, it has been stated that the Regulations of 1991 were modified by notification dated 21.6.1995 and relaxation in the required qualification can be made by the University with the prior approval of University Grants Commission in view of the decision taken by the Commission in its meeting held on 25.2.1995. It has also been stated that in order to maintain uniformity, the decisions taken for grant of various relaxations in qualifications were directed to be circulated and the said circular was enclosed along with the letter sent to the Director, Higher Education, Government of Haryana. In another affidavit filed by Shri Gurcharan Singh, Deputy Secretary, University Grants Commission, on 22.5.1996, it has been stated that University Grants Commission has issued comprehensive circular regarding relaxations granted from time to time for appointment of the teachers in the Universities and Colleges and this circular has also been sent to respondent No. 2.

6. The issue which requires adjudication by this Court is whether on the basis of circular dated 14.2.1995 issued by the University Grants Commission, the requirement of passing of eligibility test will be deemed to have been relaxed in case of teachers who are in service as Lecturers on permanent basis prior to the revision of pay scales.

7. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner is serving at Chhotu Ram Arya College, Sonepat since 17.10.1988 on the basis of regular appointment accorded to her on the recommendations of a duly constituted Selection Committee, she is entitled to be exempted from passing of eligibility test and, therefore, respondents 1 and 2 are not justified in ignoring her candidature. Learned counsel submitted that the regulations framed by the University Grant Commission and its decisions are binding on all Universities as well as State Governments and, therefore, it is not open to the respondent-Government to ignore the circular issued by the University Grants Commission. He further submitted that in view of the communication dated 22.11.1995 sent by the University Grants Commission there can be no justification in the decision taken by respondent No. 2 to reject the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that she has not passed the eligibility test. Learned counsel appearing for University Grants Commission also submitted that the decision taken by the University Grants Commission in its 347th meeting is binding on the Government and the Commission because the same stands circulated to all the Governments. He invited Courts attention to Annexure R3/1 and argued that the condition of passing eligibility test stands relaxed in the case of the candidates appointed on the recommendations of a duly constituted Selection Committee before 19.9.1991.

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General argued that in the absence of any notification by the Central Government under Section 26 of the Act, the decision taken in 347th meeting of the University Grants Commission cannot be treated as binding on the Government more so when the relevant service rules have not been amended by the Government so as to make the decision of the University Grants Commission as a part of the rules. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 argued that the Commission is bound by the qualifications laid down by the Government and as the Government has not issued any order adopting the decision contained in the minutes of the 347th meeting of the University Grants Commission, the respondent No. 2 cannot be faulted for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner.

9. Entry No. 66 of List (Union List) of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution reads as under :-

"Co-ordination and determination of the standard in the institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions."

The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 has been enacted by the Parliament under Entry No. 66 which gives exclusive authority to the Parliament to enact laws regarding co-ordination and determination of standard in institutions for higher education. The University Grants Commission has been set up primarily with the object of improving the standard of higher education. This is evident from the Statement of Objects and Reasons incorporated in the Bill presented before the Parliament. Section 2 of the Act contains definitions of various terms including the University. Section 3 relates to application of the Act. Chapter II which contains Sections 4 to 11 deals with the establishment of the Commission. Chapter III relates to powers and functions of the Commission. Section 14 specifies consequences of failure of the Universities to comply with the recommendation of the Commission. Section 25 empowers the Central Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act and Section 26 empowers the University Grants Commission to make regulations consistent with the Act and Rules framed thereunder. Section 26(1) (e) of the Act provides for framing of regulations defining qualifications which should ordinarily be possessed by a person who wishes to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University having regard to the branch of education in which he is required to give instruction.

10. In exercise of the powers vesting in it under Section 26(1)(e) of the Act, the University Grants Commission framed the University Grants Commission (Qualifications required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991 (for short, the Regulations). These Regulations have been published in the Gazette of India on 5.10.1991. Regulation 1(ii) of the Regulations says that the same are applicable to every University; every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college recognised by the Commission and every University will be deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the Act. Regulation 2 provides for qualifications. These Regulations have been amended by notification dated 21.6.1995. The provisions contained in Regulation 2 and Item No. 3-A of Schedule I read as under :-

"Regulation 2 :Qualifications :

No person shall be appointed to a teaching post in University or in any of institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognised under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or in an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act in a subject if he does not fulfil the requirements as to the qualifications for the appropriate subjects as provided in the Schedule-I.

Provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications can only be made by a University in regard to the posts under it or any of the institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognised under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or in an institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the said Act with the prior approval of the University Grants Commission.

Provided further that these regulations shall not be applicable to such cases where selections through duly constituted selection committees for making appointments to the teaching posts have been made prior to the enforcement of these regulations.

Scheldule-I

Minimum qualifications for the post of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in Subjects other than Fine Arts, Managements, Engineering and Technology in Universities or Colleges for appointment of persons through open advertisement and for promotion of persons as Reader and placement in Selection Grade Lecturer and Senior Scale Lecturer,

Item Nos. (1) & (2) xxx xxx xxx

Item No. (3) A - Lecturer

(a) Arts, Sciences, Social Sciences, Commerce, Education, Physical Education, Foreign Language and Law.

Good academic record with at least 55% markes or an equivalent grade at Masters degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. Candidates besides fulfilling the above qualifications should have cleared the eligibility test for lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC."

One of the decisions taken by respondent No. 3 in its 347th meeting dated 14.2.1995 is in the following terms :-

"The University Grants Commission vide its letter No. F.I. 15/86 (P.S.) dated 15.2.1994 has already agreed that the revised qualifications for appointment of lecturers are not applicable to the teachers who are in service as lecturers on permanent basis prior to the revision of pay scales. However, this relaxation may be made applicable to the lecturers who are working against permanent post upto 19.9.1991 (the date of enforcement of the regulations of 1991) ........

"If there is any other specific case which is not covered under the above points, the matter may be referred to the Commission with specific facts supporting the reasons for seeking relaxations, on case to case basis."

Even in the cases of those persons who were appointed against temporary posts, the University Grants Commission took the following decision :-

"If a candidate was appointed on recommendation of a duly constituted selection committee before 1991 and is still working on a temporary post, he/she may be eligible to apply for a post of Lecturer without qualifying eligibility test for lecturership."

It is therefore, clear that in so far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, after the promulgation of Regulations of 1991 which contain a specific provision for relaxation in the prescribed qualifications, the University Grants Commission has considered the proposals made by various Universities and educational institutions and has granted approval for relaxation in the prescribed qualifications. All such relaxations have been duly communicated to various Universities and Governments so that uniformity may be maintained in regard to the conditions of eligibility in recruitment of lecturers all over the country.

11. Undisputedly the State of Haryana has accepted the Regulations framed by the University Grants Commission in the year 1991 and these Regulations have been treated as applicable for the purpose of recruitment to various teaching posts in the colleges affiliated to different Universities. Therefore, if it is found that relaxation/clarifications made by the University Grants Commission from time to time are not inconsistent with the Regulations, they will be binding on the State Government as well as the Commission (respondent No. 2).

12. The argument of the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the decisions taken by the University Grants Commission in its 347th meeting held on 14.2.1995 are not required to be followed because they have not been notified in the Gazette of India as required by Section 26(1) of the Act, in our considered view, is misconceived. Once the Regulations framed by the University Grants Commission have been notified and these Regulations contain a provision for relaxation in the prescribed qualifications, which can be brought about with prior approval of the University Grants Commission the relaxation, if any, approved by the University Grants Commission will be effective irrespective of the fact that the decision of the University Grants Commission is not published in the Official Gazette. If the University Grants Commission wanted to amend the Regulations of 1991, then the same could have become effective only after their publication in the Gazette of India, but, a decision taken by the University Grants Commission in exercise of its power under proviso to Regulation 2, is not required to be published so as to become effective. Circulation of such decision and communication thereof to the educational institutions and State Government is sufficient. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the plea of the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that the relaxation granted by the University Grants Commission in its 347th meeting is not effective and binding because it has not been published in the Gazette of India. In our opinion, the proviso (1) of Regulation 2 empowers the University Grants Commission to take administrative decision on the issue of relaxation of the prescribed qualifications and such decision is binding on all those authorities which are required to follow the provisions of the Act while making recruitment of lecturers etc.

13. In this connection, it would be useful to refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in University of Delhi v. Raj Singh, 1994(5) SLR 286. That was a case in which the University of Delhi had shown its unwillingness to comply with the provisions of 1991 Regulations. On writ petitions filed before it, the High Court of Delhi issued mandamus to the University to make selection of candidates strictly in accordance with the provisions of 1991 Regulations. In appeal, their Lordships of the Supreme Court affirmed the directions given by the High Court and held that the regulations framed by the University Grants Commission did not in any manner entrench upon the autonomy of the University. Their Lordships held :-

"The ambit of entry 66 has already been the subject of the decisions of this Court in the cases of the Gujarat University and the Osmania University. The U.G.C. Act is enacted under the provisions of entry 66 to carry out the objective thereof. Its short title, in fact, reproduces the words of entry 66. The principal function of the U.G.C. is set out in the opening words of section 12, thus "It shall be the general duty of the Commission to take ... all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities..." It is very important to note that a duty is cast upon the Commission to take all such steps as it may think fit... for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching. These are very wide ranging powers. Such powers, in our view, would comprehend the power to require those who possess the educational qualifications required for holding the post of lecturers in Universities and colleges to appear for a written test, the passing of which would establish that they possess the minimal proficiency for holding such post."

From these observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the Apex Court unequivocally recognised right of the University Grants Commission to make regulations prescribing qualifications for recruitment of various teachers etc. As a logical corollary it must be held that the University Grants Commission has full power to grant relaxation in the right of the first proviso to Regulation 2 of the 1991 Regulations and there can be no justification for any Government or University to ignore such relaxation on the pretext that the same is not published in the gazette.

14. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by respondent No. 2 is illegal. It is also held that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are bound to give full effect to the decision taken by the University Grants Commission laying down the qualifications for recruitment to the post of lecturers etc. and also relaxation granted by the University Grants Commission in terms of proviso (i) to Regulation 2. The communication Annexure P7 is quashed and the Commission (respondent No. 2) is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of Lecturer (English) by treating her eligible without having qualified the eligibility test. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.