Allahabad University v. Geetanjali Tiwari: Recruitment Standards and Judicial Review

Introduction:

The case Allahabad University v. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) & Ors. concerns the recruitment process for the position of Assistant Professor at Allahabad University and its affiliated colleges. Geetanjali Tiwari, the respondent, challenged the university’s methodology for shortlisting candidates under the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018. Specifically, the challenge was against the non-recognition of her teaching experience as a contractual and guest faculty for the purpose of awarding marks under Regulation 10(f)(iii).

Key Issues:

1. Whether Regulation 10(f)(iii) under the UGC Regulations, 2018, violates Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating against contractual/guest lecturers.
2. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reading down Regulation 10(f)(iii) without declaring it ultra vires.
3. Whether the High Court’s findings on post-doctoral experience, a point not pleaded or substantiated, were sustainable.
4. Whether findings of a Writ Court must be restricted to the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties.

Arguments by the Parties:

University’s Argument: The appellants argued that Regulation 10(f)(iii) sets clear conditions for considering prior contractual teaching experience. Specifically, the regulation stipulates that teaching experience counts only if the individual’s gross emoluments match those of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. Geetanjali Tiwari’s experience did not meet this criterion, disqualifying her from earning marks under the relevant provision.

Respondent’s Argument: The respondent contended that Regulation 10(f)(iii) was arbitrary and violative of Article 14, as it created an unjust distinction based on salary rather than the competence or experience of the candidates. Further, she argued that her teaching experience, though earned in a contractual capacity, reflected her ability and should be considered equivalent to regular teaching experience.

High Court’s Judgment:

The Allahabad High Court read down Regulation 10(f)(iii), limiting its application to appointments for higher academic posts, such as Associate Professor and Professor, under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). It held that the regulation should not apply to shortlisting candidates for Assistant Professor positions. The court also made observations about post-doctoral experience, identifying it as a grey area, even though this issue was neither raised by the parties nor substantiated with evidence.

Supreme Court’s Observations:

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s judgment, providing a comprehensive analysis on multiple aspects:

1. The Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by rewriting Regulation 10(f)(iii). The regulation explicitly applies to the counting of past teaching experience for all academic positions, including Assistant Professors. Courts cannot rewrite legislative or regulatory provisions unless they are found to be ultra vires, ambiguous, or unconstitutional.
2. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s observations on post-doctoral experience were unsustainable. The issue had neither been pleaded nor substantiated with evidence. Quoting precedents like Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Chand Behari Kapoor (1998) and Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana (1988), the Court emphasized that findings of Writ Courts must be based solely on the pleadings and evidence presented by the parties. The High Court erred in entertaining a point not raised by the parties and in failing to seek clarification from the UGC on post-doctoral experience.
3. The Court upheld the validity of Regulation 10(f)(iii), rejecting the claim that it violated Article 14. It found the regulation’s distinction between regular and contractual teaching experience rational and consistent with the UGC’s objective of maintaining quality in higher education. The salary benchmark was deemed a legitimate criterion to ensure parity and fairness in evaluating candidates.
4. The Court reiterated that academic and regulatory bodies like the UGC possess the expertise to determine eligibility criteria. Judicial review should not extend to substituting expert policy decisions with judicial opinions unless the policy is manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional.

Key Findings:

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case highlights critical principles regarding judicial intervention, regulatory autonomy, and the application of Regulation 10(f)(iii). Drawing from precedents like Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Chand Behari Kapoor (1998) and Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana (1988), the Court reaffirmed that judicial findings must strictly adhere to the pleadings and evidence. Courts cannot rely on conjecture or address issues that lack proper factual substantiation in writ petitions or affidavits. In line with Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2024), the Court emphasized that recruitment processes based on transparent and rational criteria must align with established norms and avoid arbitrary or discriminatory practices. 

Regarding Regulation 10(f)(iii), the Court clarified its applicability to all teaching positions, including Assistant Professors. The regulation sets valid conditions for assessing prior teaching experience, ensuring that relevant experience is considered during recruitment. The Court rejected attempts to dilute or misinterpret these provisions, underscoring the necessity of adhering to the regulatory framework designed to maintain academic standards. Judicial review, it was held, should not extend to altering or second-guessing expert-driven policies, such as those established by the University Grants Commission, unless they conflict with constitutional principles.

The judgment also reinforced the limited scope of writ courts. It stressed that courts must focus on issues directly raised and substantiated by evidence, avoiding extraneous matters that expand the scope of litigation. Furthermore, the Court upheld the UGC’s regulatory autonomy, emphasizing that its policies, developed by experts in the field, are not to be interfered with lightly.

SC’s Judgment: 

The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court concerning Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the University Grants Commission (UGC) 2018 Regulations. The court held that the Division Bench erred in reading down the regulation without declaring it ultra vires. The Bench neither identified any legislative incompetence nor found any violation of constitutional rights or provisions of the UGC Act. Instead, it bypassed the issue of validity by construing the regulation in a way that it deemed unnecessary to examine its vires. This approach, the Supreme Court noted, was impermissible.

The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial review cannot rewrite legislation or add or remove words to suit an interpretation. Regulation 10(f)(iii) explicitly accounts for the counting of prior regular service, including as an Assistant Professor, for direct recruitment. The Division Bench’s interpretation disregarded this, effectively excluding teaching experience from the shortlisting criteria, which was contrary to the intent of the UGC.

The Court stated that the UGC Regulations were framed by experts to balance eligibility requirements with shortlisting mechanisms, particularly given the large number of applications for limited positions. The Division Bench’s approach, which treated past service as irrelevant, undermined this policy, and its reasoning on “post-doctoral experience” lacked the necessary pleadings or factual basis. Furthermore, the Supreme Court affirmed the validity of shortlisting based on academic and teaching experience, as specified in Tables 3A and 3B of the regulations, which were in line with the broader scheme of the UGC. It reiterated that courts should refrain from intervening in policy matters unless there is clear illegality.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, upheld the single judge’s ruling, and dismissed the writ petition and appeal by the respondent. The Court clarified that the regulations properly accounted for prior teaching experience, supporting the shortlisting mechanism adopted by Allahabad University.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Allahabad University v. Geetanjali Tiwari reinforces the principle that judicial intervention in academic policies should be minimal and grounded in clear legal violations. By upholding the validity of Regulation 10(f)(iii) and emphasizing the limits of Writ Court jurisdiction, the judgment strikes a balance between regulatory autonomy and judicial oversight. It reiterates that pleadings and evidence form the foundation of judicial inquiry, ensuring fairness and preventing judicial overreach.

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com