Madras High Court: In a batch of petitions filed challenging the proceedings of the University of Madras refusing to grant approval for the appointment of 66 persons to the post of Assistant Professor and seeking a direction to the Annamalai University to grant approval for appointment to the post of Principal, the single judge bench of N. Anand Venkatesh, J. held that the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (‘UGC Regulations, 2018’) will not apply to the minority institutions. Given this conclusion, the refusal by the University of Madras and Annamalai University to grant approval for appointments based on non-compliance with the UGC-mandated Selection Committee structure was deemed invalid. The Court observed that the State Government’s Government Order was merely an adoption of the UGC Regulations, 2018, and since the UGC-mandated Selection Committee was found to infringe upon minority rights, the Government Order itself could not stand. Therefore, the reasoning behind the universities’ refusal to approve appointments also failed.
In conclusion, the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders issued by the University of Madras and Annamalai University were quashed. The Court directed both universities to approve the selections made by the petitioners for the posts of Assistant Professor and Principal without reference to UGC Regulations, 2018 and the Government Order.
Background
The petitioners challenge the refusal of the University of Madras and Annamalai University to grant approval for the selection of candidates to the posts of Assistant Professor and Principal, citing non-compliance with the selection process mandated under the UGC Regulations, 2018. The universities based their refusal on the ground that the appointments were not made through a duly constituted Selection Committee, as required by the UGC Regulations, which were adopted by the State Government through its Government Order dated 11-01-2021. However, the petitioners contend that the insistence on adherence to the UGC-mandated selection process violates the fundamental rights of minority institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. They argue that minority institutions have the autonomy to manage their educational institutions, including the selection of teaching staff, without external interference. In view of this, the petitioners seek to set aside the proceedings of the respondent universities and request a direction to approve the selections made by the institutions without reference to the UGC Regulations.
Issues
-
Whether both the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 as well as the Government Order dated 11-1-2021 adopting the UGC Regulations, 2018 and providing the guidelines on the selection procedure through the constitution of a Selection Committee in line with the UGC Regulations, 2018 infringe upon the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and whether they require a separate challenge by means of a Writ of Declaration to consider this issue.
-
Whether the UGC Regulations, 2018 are aimed at maintaining standards in higher education in universities and colleges and therefore, do not interfere with the Rights guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
Analysis and Decision
The Court took note of the relevant Regulations, which dealt with the selection to the posts of (a) Assistant Professor and (b) Principal, as the case may be, and examined if there is any marked difference between the earlier UGC Regulations and the UGC Regulations, 2018.
The Court, while referring to Forum of Minority Institutions and Associations v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 17, reaffirmed that the requirement of constituting a Selection Committee under the impugned UGC Regulations does not apply to minority institutions. It observed that when the law has already been settled in the earlier judgment concerning the UGC Regulations of 2000 and 2010, and the 2018 Regulations do not introduce any substantive changes or impose more stringent conditions, minority institutions cannot be compelled to challenge each new set of regulations repeatedly.
The Court observed that, with respect to the post of Assistant Professor, there is no significant change in the constitution of the Selection Committee between the UGC Regulations of 2010 and 2018. However, for the post of Principal, the 2018 Regulations have introduced a more stringent selection process, wherein out of 10 members only three are insiders, while the majority are nominees recommended by the Vice-Chancellor, with most being outsiders. Given this structure, the Court held that the principles established by the Division Bench in the earlier judgment would equally apply when assessing the validity of the Selection Committee’s composition for the appointment of a principal in minority institutions.
The Court emphasised the significance of Articles 29(2) and 30(1) of the Constitution of India, clarifying that a minority institution does not lose its minority character merely by admitting a certain number of non-members. The essence of Article 30(1) lies in the terms “establish” and “administer”, which must be read conjunctively. This means that when a religious minority establishes an educational institution, it inherently retains the right to administer it in a manner that aligns with its objectives and values. The right to administer is not merely a privilege but a safeguard, ensuring that the institution can function in accordance with the ideals and interests of the minority community.
The Court reiterated that Article 30(1) serves as a protective shield against executive or legislative interference, preserving the autonomy of minority institutions. While it is framed as a right, its primary purpose is to prevent encroachments that could undermine the ability of minorities to govern their institutions according to their traditions and educational philosophies.
Referring to Forum of Minority Institutions and Associations (supra), the Court noted that the Division Bench of this Court found that the UGC Regulations, 2000 and the subsequent Regulations, 2010 interfered with the rights of administration of the minority institutions by imposing certain conditions in the constitution of the Selection Committee and that the same is violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The Division Bench also held that once the right of appointment of teachers is taken to be the right of administration, the impugned guidelines would not apply to the minority institutions. Thus, the Division Bench directed the respondents to approve the selection made by the minority institutions without reference to the relevant UGC Regulations.
Therefore, the Court held that the minority institutions need not repeatedly challenge the UGC Regulations as and when the New Regulations are brought forth unless a substantive change has been brought about in the New Regulations, which is not the case in hand. Therefore, the applicability of the selection process prescribed in the UGC Regulations, 2018 can be tested in the anvil of the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Forum of Minority Institutions and Associations (supra).
The Court held that both the UGC Regulations, 2018 and the Government Order which adopted the UGC Regulations and prescribed guidelines for the selection process, violate the fundamental rights guaranteed to minority institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court clarified that these regulations infringe upon the autonomy of minority institutions, and therefore, a separate writ petition challenging them was unnecessary.
Consequently, the Court categorically ruled that the UGC Regulations, 2018 will not apply to minority institutions. Given this conclusion, the refusal by the University of Madras and Annamalai University to grant approval for appointments based on non-compliance with the UGC-mandated Selection Committee structure was deemed invalid. The Court observed that the State Government’s Government Order was merely an adoption of the UGC Regulations, 2018, and since the UGC-mandated Selection Committee was found to infringe upon minority rights, the Government Order itself could not stand. Therefore, the reasoning behind the universities’ refusal to approve appointments also failed, reinforcing the autonomy of minority institutions in their selection and appointment processes.
In conclusion, the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders issued by the University of Madras and Annamalai University were quashed. The Court directed both universities to approve the selections made by the petitioners for the posts of Assistant Professor and Principal without reference to UGC Regulations, 2018 and the Government Order.
The Court, however, clarified that the approval would be subject to the selected candidates meeting the required qualifications and experience.
Both universities were directed to pass the necessary orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Upon such approval, the selected candidates would be entitled to salary fixation for the respective posts, including arrears of salary from the date of their appointment.
[The Principal & Secretary, Women’s Christian College v. State of Tamil Nadu, Writ Petition Nos.18165 of 2024, decided on 27-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, SC,
For Respondent: Mr.D.Ravichandran, SGP, Mrs.V.Sudha, Standing Counsel, Mr.S.Sithirai Anandham, Standing Counsel, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, ASGI assisted by Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, Standing Counsel
Buy Constitution of India HERE
