Plight of UGC Regulations

The recent Rajasthan High Court dictum on the implications of UGC Regulations on the State Universities has once again reiterated the opinion of Supreme Court in T.P. George Case. Indeed this was not the first judgment when the High Courts in India have ingenuously overlooked the binding mandate of UGC Regulations. This dictum of Rajasthan High Court contributes to an array of decisions whereby the judiciary has made a mockery of the legal solemnity to the Regulations passed by a body which has been constitutionally entrusted to make provision for the co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities. The thought that these regulations which are specifically made within the ambit of the power conferred on UGC are not binding on the Universities will surely undermine confidence in the UGC as a body established with a constitutional mandate. The main question before the Courts has always been that whether the UGC Regulations are binding on the State Universities. Before I analyze the correctness of these decisions it is quite pertinent to briefly review the facts and circumstances which have led to the current controversy.

The story starts when the Chaddha Committee, which was constituted for revision of the pay scales of teachers in higher education at par with the 6^th Pay Commission, came up with a conclusive suggestion for an increment in the superannuation age of teachers from 62 to 65 years with an objective to meet the acute shortage of experienced teachers in state universities. On the basis of this report MHRD formulated a scheme which included pay scales, qualifications, recruitment procedures and covering various other important aspects, one such aspect being the superannuation age. Subsequently, the MHRD and the UGC flashed out various circulars to the education secretaries of States directing them to implement the UGC’s composite scheme in toto failing to which the State Government will have to cease its demand of reimbursement to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure incurred on the payment of the revised scales. On June 30, 2010 UGC in pursuance of letter from MHRD framed UGC Regulations 2010. These regulation were framed under the powers conferred by clauses (e) and (g) of section 26 of UGC Act, 1956.

Various State Universities across the country in order to avoid the implementation of this regulations claim that this UGC fiat has no binding effect on them as these regulations are mere recommendations and cannot override the State Universities Act enacted by the state legislature under entry 25 of the concurrent list. The same view was upheld by Supreme Court in T.P. George case which has been reiterated in bundle of High Court judgments. However, the author is of the view that in the current educational regime, there has been significant transformation in the work of UGC then and today. Now these regulations are no more mere recommendations. The High Courts in India have failed to appreciate the context in which the Supreme Court ruled in T.P. George and have tried to riposte the judgment of the Supreme Court. The principle of Stare decisis also worked like handcuffs for the High Courts. This has left the following questions unanswered which are of great significance in current scenario. First, whether age of superannuation is a matter which comes within the purview of entry 66 of List 1 of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India? Second, whether the interpretation of the apex Court in T.P. George Case is significantly overruled by subsequent case laws? Third, whether the regulations made by UGC are in the form of delegated legislation and can it override State Legislation? Finally, whether the Court took into consideration the wordings of the regulations which in this case appear to be more than mere recommendations?

The judiciary should take note of the nature of the functions performed by the UGC and at this juncture it is essential that the regulation made by UGC should be given a status more than that of a mere recommendation. Further, these regulations should have universal application throughout the country so that UGC can discharge its constitutional mandate of making provision for the co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities effectively and efficiently. The author expresses his apprehension that by ousting the control of UGC over State Universities, the constitutional purpose for which UGC has been established would fail.

Critical comments would be much appreciated!