M.PRABHAKAR v. UNION OF INDIA

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2891-2900 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.36023-36032 OF 2010] P. SUSEELA & ORS. ETC. ETC. …APPELLANTS VERSUS UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ORS. ETC. ETC. …RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2901 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.10247 OF 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2902 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.14985 OF 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2903 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.34196 OF 2012] CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2904-2906 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.36362-36364 OF 2012] CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2907-2908 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.38991-38992 OF 2012] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2909 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.1529 OF 2013] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2910 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.1817 OF 2013] 1

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2911 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.4619 OF 2013] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2912 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.4925 OF 2013] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2913 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.17939 OF 2013] CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.286-287 OF 2014 IN SLP (C) NOS.3054-3055 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2914-2915 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.3054-3055 OF 2014] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2916 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.3753 OF 2014] J U D G M E N T R.F.Nariman, J. 1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 2. A large number of appeals are before us in which the judgments of four High Courts are assailed. The High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 6 th December, 2010 was faced with the constitutional validity of the University Grants Commission Regulations (Minimum Qualifications Required for the Appointment And Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (the third 2

Amendment) Regulation 2009 under which NET/SLET is to be the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. The challenge was repelled saying that the Regulations do not violate Article 14 and are, in fact, prospective inasmuch as they apply only to appointments made after the date of the notification and do not apply to appointments made prior to that date. Along the lines of the Delhi High Court, the Madras and Rajasthan High Courts have also repelled challenges to the aforesaid regulations vide their judgments dated 6 th December, 2010 and 13 th September, 2012. On the other hand, the Allahabad High Court in a judgment dated 6 th April, 2012 has found that the said regulations were issued pursuant to directions of the Central Government which themselves were issued outside the powers conferred by the UGC Act and, hence, the eligibility conditions laid down would not apply to M. Phil. and Ph.D. degrees awarded prior to 31 st December, 2009. However, a subsequent judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 6 th January, 2014 distinguished the aforesaid judgment and upheld the self-same regulations. Whereas the Union of 3

India is in appeal before us from the Allahabad High Court judgment dated 6 th April, 2012, M.Phil. degree holders and Ph.D. degree holders who have not yet been appointed as Assistant Professors in any University/College/Institution are the appellants before us in all the other appeals. 3. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy in these appeals are as follows:- The University Grants Commission Act, 1956, was enacted by Parliament to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in Universities being enacted under Entry 66 List I, Schedule VII to the Constitution of India. By Section 4 of the Act, a University Grants Commission is established to carry out the functions entrusted to it by Section 12 of the Act. We are directly concerned in these appeals with two Sections of this Act, namely, Sections 20 and 26:- 20. Directions by the Central Government .—(1) In the discharge of its functions under this Act, the Commission shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes as may be given to it by the Central Government. 4

(2) If any dispute arises between the Central Government and the Commission as to whether a question is or is not a question of policy relating to national purposes, the decision of the Central Government shall be final. 26. Power to make regulations .—(1) The Commission may [, by notification in the Official Gazette,] make regulations consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder,— ( a ) regulating the meetings of the Commission and the procedure for conducting business thereat; ( b ) regulating the manner in which and the purposes for which persons may be associated with the Commission under Section 9; ( c ) specifying the terms and conditions of service of the employees appointed by the Commission; ( d ) specifying the institutions or class of institutions which may be recognised by the Commission under clause ( f ) of Section 2; ( e ) defining 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 instruction; ( f ) defining the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any University; ( g ) regulating the maintenance of standards and the co-ordination of work or facilities in Universities. 5

[( h ) regulating the establishment of institutions referred to in clause ( ccc ) of Section 12 and other matters relating to such institutions; ( i ) specifying the matters in respect of which fees may be charged, and scales of fees in accordance with which fees may be charged, by a college under sub-section (2) of Section 12-A; ( j ) specifying the manner in which an inquiry may be conducted under sub-section (4) of Section 12-A.] (2) No regulation shall be made under clause ( a ) or clause ( b ) or clause ( c ) or clause ( d ) [or clause ( h ) or clause ( i ) or clause ( j )] of sub-section (1) except with the previous approval of the Central Government. (3) The power to make regulations conferred by this section [except clause ( i ) and clause ( j ) of sub-section (1)] shall include the power to give retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, to the regulations or any of them but no retrospective effect shall be given to any regulation so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such regulation may be applicable. 4. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 26(1)(e) of the said Act, the UGC framed regulations in 1982 prescribing the qualification for the teaching post of Lecturer in colleges as follows:- 6

“ M. Phil. degree or a recognised degree beyond Master’s level”. In 1986, the Malhotra Committee was appointed by the UGC to examine various features of University and College education. It recommended that there should be certain minimum qualifications laid down for the post of Lecturer. Pursuant to the said Committee report, the UGC framed regulations on 19 th September, 1991 superseding the 1982 regulations and providing apart from other qualifications, clearing of the NET as a test for eligibility to become a Lecturer. Vide an amendment dated 21 st June, 1995, a proviso was added to the 1991 regulations by which candidates who have submitted their Ph.D. thesis or passed the M. Phil. examination on or before 31 st December, 1993 are exempted from the said eligibility test for appointment to the post of Lecturer. This continued till 2002, the only change made being that the exemption continued qua Ph.D. thesis holders for dates that were extended till 31 st December, 2002. This state of affairs continued until 2008 when the Mungekar Committee submitted its final report recommending that NET should be made a compulsory requirement for appointment of Lecturer in addition to the 7

candidate possessing M.Phil. or Ph.D degrees. On 12 th November, 2008, the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, issued a directive under Section 22 of the UGC Act providing inter alia as under:- “ UGC shall, for serving the national purpose of maintaining standards of higher education, frame appropriate regulations within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of this order prescribing that qualifying in NET/SLET shall generally be compulsory for all persons appointed to teaching positions of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Higher Education, and only persons who possess degree of Ph.D. after having been enrolled/ admitted to a programme notified by the Commission, after it has satisfied itself on the basis of expert opinion, as to be or have always been in conformity with the procedure of standardization of Ph.D. prescribed by it, and also that the degree of Ph.D. was awarded by a University or Institution Deemed to be University notified by the UGC as having already complied with the procedure prescribed under the regulations framed by the Commission for the purpose.” 5. In pursuance of the said directive, the UGC promulgated the impugned Regulations of 2009, the 3 rd Amendment of which provides as follows:- “ NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/ Institutions. 8

Provided, however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded Ph.D. Degree in compliance of the “University Grants Commission (minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D. Degree), Regulation 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent position in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.” The proviso referred to a number of new conditions relating to the maximum number of Ph.D. students at any given point of time, stringent admission criteria for a Ph.D. degree, research papers being published, the Ph.D. thesis being evaluated by at least two experts, one of whom shall be an expert from outside the State etc. 6. This was followed by another directive dated 30 th March, 2010 by the Ministry under Section 20 of the Act directing the UGC as follows:- “ The Ministry of Human Resource Development issued another order dated 30.3.2010 under Section 20 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 directing the UGC as follows: (i) That the UGC shall not take up specific cases for exemption from the application of the NET Regulations of 2009 after the said Regulations have come into force, for either specific persons or for a specific university/institution/college from the 9

application of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for appointment and career advancement of teachers in universities and colleges) 3rd Amendment Regulations, 2009 for appointment as Lecturer in universities/colleges/institutions; (ii) That appropriate amendment to the second proviso to clause 2 of the UGC Regulations 2000 shall be made by UGC to give full effect to the policy directions issued by the Central Government dated 12th November, 2008, within 30 days from the date of issue of this direction; and (iii) That the decision taken by the UGC in it's 468th meeting held on 23rd February, 2010 vide agenda item no. 6.04 and 6.05 to grant specific exemptions from the applicability of NET shall not be implemented as being contrary to national policy. The above said directions shall be implemented by the UGC forthwith.” 7. Pursuant to this directive, on 30 th June, 2010, the UGC framed Regulations of 2010, para 3.3.1 of which states: “ 3.3.1. NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. Provided however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment 10

of Assistant Professor equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/ Institutions.” 8. By two resolutions dated 12 th August, 2010 and 27 th September, 2010, the UGC opined that since the regulations are prospective in nature, all candidates having M. Phil. degree on or before 10 th July, 2009 and all persons who obtained the Ph.D. degree on or before 31 st December, 2009 and had registered themselves for the Ph.D. before this date, but are awarded such degree subsequently shall remain exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor. 9. The Central Government, however, by letter dated 3 rd November, 2010 informed the UGC that they were unable to agree with the decision of the Commission and stated that consequently a candidate seeking appointment to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor must fulfill the minimum qualifications prescribed by the UGC including the minimum eligibility condition of having passed the NET test. 11

10. Learned counsel assailing the Delhi, Madras and Rajasthan High Court judgments argued that Section 26(3) expressly entitles a regulation to be prospective but so as not to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such regulation may be applicable. They, therefore, argued that both under Article 14 as well as this sub-section, since all M.Phil. and Ph.D. holders had been repeatedly assured that they would be exempt from passing the NET exam if they were such holders prior to 2009, the regulations should not be so construed as to impose the burden of this examination upon them. They further argued that under Section 26(2), regulations made in pursuance of Section 26(1)(e) and (g) do not require the previous approval of the Central Government. Consequently, the impugned regulations are bad since they follow the dictate of the Central Government which is not required. Also, this would show that when it comes to qualifications of persons to be appointed to the teaching staff, the UGC is an expert body to whom alone such qualifications and consequently exemptions from such qualifications should be left to decide. They also argued that there is a violation of 12

Article 14 in that unequals have been treated equally as those who passed their M. Phil. and Ph.D. degrees prior to 2009 fell in a separate class which had an intelligible differentia from those who did not so fall as has been maintained by the UGC from time to time. They strongly relied upon the judgment of this Court in University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary (1996) 10 SCC 536 for this proposition as well as the proposition that their legitimate expectation in the matter of appointment on the post of Lecturer had been done away with. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union of India and the UGC stressed the fact that under Section 26 regulations have to be made consistently with the Act and Section 20 is very much part of the Act. Therefore, if directions on questions of policy are made by the Central Government, regulations must necessarily be subordinate to such directions. It was also pointed out that if a question arises as to whether a subject matter is a question of policy relating to national purposes, the decision of the Central Government shall be final. They then relied upon Udai Singh Dagar v. Union of India (2007) 10 SCC 306, for the proposition that a person will have 13

the right to enter a profession only if he holds the requisite qualification and the holding of such qualification would be prospective if it is a qualification which is laid down any time before his entry into a profession. 12. It is clear that Section 26 enables the Commission to make regulations only if they are consistent with the UGC Act. This necessarily means that such regulations must conform to Section 20 of the Act and under Section 20 of the Act the Central Government is given the power to give directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes which shall guide the Commission in the discharge of its functions under the Act. It is clear, therefore, that both the directions of 12 th November, 2008 and 30 th March, 2010 are directions made pertaining to questions of policy relating to national purposes inasmuch as, being based on the Mungekar Committee Report, the Central Government felt that a common uniform nationwide test should be a minimum eligibility condition for recruitment for the appointment of Lecturer/Assistant Professors in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. This is for the obvious reason that M. Phil. degrees or Ph.D. degrees are granted by different 14

Universities/Institutions having differing standards of excellence. It is quite possible to conceive of M.Phil/ Ph.D. degrees being granted by several Universities which did not have stringent standards of excellence. Considering as a matter of policy that the appointment of Lecturers/ Assistant Professors in all institutions governed by the UGC Act (which are institutions all over the country), the need was felt to have in addition a national entrance test as a minimum eligibility condition being an additional qualification which has become necessary in view of wide disparities in the granting of M. Phil./ Ph.D. degrees by various Universities/ Institutions. The object sought to be achieved by these directions is clear: that all Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions governed by the UGC Act should have a certain minimum standard of excellence before they are appointed as such. These directions are not only made in exercise of powers under Section 20 of the Act but are made to provide for coordination and determination of standards which lies at the very core of the UGC Act. It is clear, therefore, that any regulation made under 15

Section 26 must conform to directions issued by the Central Government under Section 20 of the Act. 13. It was argued that since the previous approval of the Central Government was not necessary for regulations which define the qualifications required of persons to be appointed to the teaching staff of a University, the Government has no role to play in such matters and cannot dictate to the Commission. This argument does not hold water for the simple reason that it ignores the opening lines of Section 26(1) which states that the Commission can only make regulations consistent with the Act, which brings in the Central Government’s power under Section 20 of the Act, a power that is independent of sub-section (2) of Section 26. A regulation may not require the previous approval of the Central Government and may yet have to be in conformity with a direction issued under Section 20 of the Act. In fact, even where a regulation can only be made with the previous approval of the Central Government, the Central Government would have a role to play both before and after the regulation is made. In the first case, it would accord its previous approval to the regulation. Once the regulation 16

becomes law, it may issue directions under Section 20 pursuant to which the very same regulation may have to be modified or done away with to conform to such direction. It is clear, therefore, that Section 26(2) would not stand in the way of the directions issued in the present case by the Central Government to the Commission. 14. The other interesting argument made is that such regulations should not be given retrospective effect so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such regulation may be applicable. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to distinguish between an existing right and a vested right. This distinction was made with great felicity in Trimbak Damodhar Rajpurkar v. Assaram Hiraman Patil , 1962 Suppl. 1 SCR 700. In that case a question arose as to whether an amendment made to Section 5 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Amendment Act could be said to be retrospective because its operation took within its sweep existing rights. A bench of five Hon’ble Judges of this Court held that Section 5 had no retrospective operation. This Court held: 17

“ Besides, it is necessary to bear in mind that the right of the appellant to eject the respondents would arise only on the termination of the tenancy, and in the present case it would have been available to him on March 31, 1953 if the statutory provision had not in the meanwhile extended the life of the tenancy. It is true that the appellant gave notice to the respondents on March 11, 1952 as he was then no doubt entitled to do; but his right as a landlord to obtain possession did not accrue merely on the giving of the notice, it accrued in his favour on the date when the lease expired. It is only after the period specified in the notice is over and the tenancy has in fact expired that the landlord gets a right to eject the tenant and obtain possession of the land. Considered from this point of view, before the right accrued to the appellant to eject the respondents amending Act 33 of 1952 stepped in and deprived him of that right by requiring him to comply with the statutory requirement as to a valid notice which has to be given for ejecting tenants. In this connection it is relevant to distinguish between an existing right and a vested right. Where a statute operates in future it cannot be said to be retrospective merely because within the sweep of its operation all existing rights are included. As observed by Buckley, L.J. in West v. Gwynne [ (1911) 2 Ch 1 at pp 11, 12] retrospective operation is one matter and interference with existing rights is another. “If an Act provides that as at a past date the law shall be taken to have been that which it was not, that Act I understand to be retrospective. That is not this case. The question here is whether a certain provision as to the contents of leases is addressed to the case of all leases or only of some, namely, leases executed after the passing of the Act. The question is as to the ambit and scope of the Act, and not as to the date as from which the new law, 18

as enacted by the Act, is to be taken to have been the law.” These observations were made in dealing with the question as to the retrospective construction of Section 3 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 13). In substance Section 3 provided that in all leases containing a covenant, condition or agreement against assigning, underletting, or parting with the possession, or disposing of the land or property leased without licence or consent, such covenant, condition or agreement shall, unless the lease contains an expressed provision to the contrary, be deemed to be subject to a proviso to the effect that no fine or sum of money in the nature of a fine shall be payable for or in respect of such licence or consent. It was held that the provisions of the said section applied to all leases whether executed before or after the commencement of the Act; and, according to Buckley, L.J., this construction did not make the Act retrospective in operation; it merely affected in future existing rights under all leases whether executed before or after the date of the Act. The position in regard to the operation of Section 5(1) of the amending Act with which we are concerned appears to us to be substantially similar. A similar question had been raised for the decision of this Court in Jivabhai Purshottam v. Chhagan Karson [ Civil Appeal No 153 of 1958 decided on 27-3-1961] in regard to the retrospective operation of Section 34(2)( a ) of the said amending Act 33 of 1952 and this Court has approved of the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court on that point in Durlabbha Fakirbhai v. Jhaverbhai Bhikabhai [ (1956) 58 BLR 85] . It was held in Durlabbhai case [ (1956) 58 BLR 85] that the relevant provision of the amending Act would apply to all proceedings where the period of notice had expired after the amending Act had come into force and that the effect of the amending Act 19

was no more than this that it imposed a new and additional limitation on the right of the landlord to obtain possession from his tenant. It was observed in that judgment that “a notice under Section 34(1) is merely a declaration to the tenant of the intention of the landlord to terminate the tenancy; but it is always open to the landlord not to carry out his intention. Therefore, for the application of the restriction under sub-section 2( a ) on the right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy, the crucial date is not the date of notice but the date on which the right to terminate matures; that is the date on which the tenancy stands terminated”. 15. Similar is the case on facts here. A vested right would arise only if any of the appellants before us had actually been appointed to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professors. Till that date, there is no vested right in any of the appellants. At the highest, the appellants could only contend that they have a right to be considered for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor. This right is always subject to minimum eligibility conditions, and till such time as the appellants are appointed, different conditions may be laid down at different times. Merely because an additional eligibility condition in the form of a NET test is laid down, it does not mean that any vested right of the appellants is affected, nor does it mean that the regulation laying down such 20

minimum eligibility condition would be retrospective in operation. Such condition would only be prospective as it would apply only at the stage of appointment. It is clear, therefore, that the contentions of the private appellants before us must fail. 16. One of the learned counsel for the petitioners argued, based on the language of the direction of the Central Government dated 12 th November, 2008 that all that the Government wanted the UGC to do was to “generally” prescribe NET as a qualification. But this did not mean that UGC had to prescribe this qualification without providing for any exemption. We are unable to accede to this argument for the simple reason that the word “generally” precedes the word “compulsory” and it is clear that the language of the direction has been followed both in letter and in spirit by the UGC regulations of 2009 and 2010. 17. The arguments based on Article 14 equally have to be rejected. It is clear that the object of the directions of the Central Government read with the UGC regulations of 2009/2010 are to maintain excellence in standards of higher 21

education. Keeping this object in mind, a minimum eligibility condition of passing the national eligibility test is laid down. True, there may have been exemptions laid down by the UGC in the past, but the Central Government now as a matter of policy feels that any exemption would compromise the excellence of teaching standards in Universities/Colleges/ Institutions governed by the UGC. Obviously, there is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory in this – in fact it is a core function of the UGC to see that such standards do not get diluted. 18. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has been dealt with in two judgments of this Court as follows: In Union of India v. International Trading Company (2003) 5 SCC 437, it was held: “ 23. Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. In determining whether there is any unfairness involved; the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, 22

the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing condition at the relevant time, enter into judicial verdict. The reasonableness of the legitimate expectation has to be determined with respect to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question. Canalisation of a particular business in favour of even a specified individual is reasonable where the interests of the country are concerned or where the business affects the economy of the country. (See Parbhani Transport Coop. Society Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority [AIR 1960 SC 801 : 62 Bom LR 521] , Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [(1974) 1 SCC 468 : AIR 1974 SC 366] , Hari Chand Sarda v. Mizo District Council [AIR 1967 SC 829] and Krishnan Kakkanth v. Govt. of Kerala [(1997) 9 SCC 495 : AIR 1997 SC 128].” 19. Similarly, in Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA (2009) 1 SCC 180, it was held:- “ 33. It is well settled that the concept of legitimate expectation has no role to play where the State action is as a public policy or in the public interest unless the action taken amounts to an abuse of power. The court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority which is empowered to take the decisions under law and the court is expected to apply an objective standard which leaves to the deciding authority the full range of choice which the legislature is presumed to have intended. Even in a case where the decision is left entirely to the discretion of the deciding authority without any such legal bounds and if the decision is taken fairly and objectively, the court will not interfere on the ground of procedural fairness to a person whose interest based on legitimate expectation might be affected. 23

Therefore, a legitimate expectation can at the most be one of the grounds which may give rise to judicial review but the granting of relief is very much limited.(Vide Hindustan Development Corpn. [(1993) 3 SCC 499]” 20. In University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary (1996) 10 SCC, 536, it is true that in paragraph 22, some of the very appellants before us are referred to as having a legitimate expectation in the matter of appointment to the post of Lecturer in Universities/Colleges, but that case would have no direct application here. There a challenge was made to exemptions granted at that time to Ph.D. holders and M. Phil. degree holders. It was found that such exemption had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved at that point of time, being based on an intelligible differentia. An Article 14 challenge to the said exemption was, therefore, repelled. Even assuming that the said judgment would continue to apply even after the 2009 Regulations, a legitimate expectation must always yield to the larger public interest. The larger public interest in the present case is nothing less than having highly qualified Assistant Professors to teach in UGC Institutions. 24

Even if, therefore, the private appellants before us had a legitimate expectation that given the fact that the UGC granted them an exemption from the NET and continued to state that such exemption should continue to be granted even after the Government direction of 12 th November, 2008 would have to yield to the larger public interest of selection of the most meritorious among candidates to teach in Institutions governed by the UGC Act. 21. The Allahabad High Court in its judgment dated 6 th April, 2012 has held as follows: “ 104. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 20 (1) of UGC Act, 1956, does not possess powers and authority to set aside or annul the recommendations of the University Grants Commission, and the regulations made by it under Section 26 (1) (e) of the Act defining the qualification, that should ordinarily be required to be possessed by any person to be appointed to the teaching posts of the University, for which under Section 26 (2) of the UGC Act, 1956, the previous approval of the Central Government is not required. 2. The exemptions given by UGC to those, who were awarded Ph.D degrees prior to 31.12.2009 before the enforcement of the Regulations of 2009, is not a question of policy relating to national 25

purpose on which the Central Government could have issued directions under Section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956. 3. The UGC is an expert body constituted with specialists in laying down standards and for promotion and coordination of University education. The recommendations made by it in the matters of qualifications and the limited exemptions of such qualifications for appointment for teachers in Universities taken after constituting expert Committees and considering their recommendations is not subject to supervision and control by the Central Government. The Central Government in the matters of laying down minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers in the University, does not possess any supervisory powers, to annul the resolutions of UGC. 4. The Ph.D holders, who were awarded Ph.D degrees prior to 31.12.2009, cannot be said to have legitimate expectation maturing into any right to be considered for appointment on teaching posts in the University, without obtaining the NET/SLET/SET qualifications, unless the UGC has provided for any exemptions. 5. The resolution on agenda item no. 6.04 and 6.05 in the 468th meeting of the UGC held on 23.2.2010, and the resolution of UGC in its 471st meeting on agenda item no. 2.08 dated 12.8.2010 recommending the 3rd Amendments to the Regulations of 2009 to be prospective in nature, is binding on the Universities including the University of Allahabad. 6. The petitioners were awarded Ph.D degrees in the year 2009 and in the year 2003 respectively prior to enforcement of the 3rd Amendment in the regulations, which came into force on 31.12.2009, and thus they are eligible, even if they are not 26

NET/SLET/SET qualified, if they have been awarded Ph.D degree with any six conditions out of 11 recommended by the UGC prior to 31.12.2009. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioners are held eligible for consideration for appointment as Lecturer for guest faculty in the Department of Sanskrit of the University, provided they satisfy any of the six tests out of eleven, laid down by the UGC, and which are made essential for award of Ph.D degree under the 3rd Amendment of the Regulations of 2009. It will be open to the University to consider from the material produced by the petitioners, that they satisfy six out of eleven tests recommended by the University Grants Commission for award of their Ph.D.” 22. We have already pointed out how the directions of the Central Government under Section 20 of the UGC Act pertain to questions of policy relating to national purpose. We have also pointed out that the regulation making power is subservient to directions issued under Section 20 of the Act. The fact that the UGC is an expert body does not take the matter any further. The UGC Act contemplates that such expert body will have to act in accordance with directions issued by the Central Government. 27

23. The Allahabad High Court adverted to an expert committee under the Chairmanship of Professor S.P. Thyagarajan which laid down that if six out of eleven criteria laid down by the Committee was satisfied when such University granted a Ph.D. degree, then such Ph.D. degree should be sufficient to qualify such person for appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor without the further qualification of having to pass the NET test. The UGC itself does not appear to have given effect to this recommendation of the Thyagarajan Committee. However, the High Court thought it fit to give effect to this Committee’s recommendation in the final directions issued by it. When the UGC itself has not accepted the recommendations of the said Committee, we do not understand how the High Court sought to give effect to such recommendations. We, therefore, set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment dated 6 th April, 2012 in its entirety. 24. In SLP (C) NO.3054-3055/2014, a judgment of the same High Court dated 6 th January, 2014 again by a Division Bench arrived at the opposite conclusion. This is also a matter which causes us some distress. A Division Bench judgment of the 28

same High Court is binding on a subsequent Division Bench. The subsequent Division Bench can either follow it or refer such judgment to the Chief Justice to constitute a Full Bench if it differs with it. We do not appreciate the manner in which this subsequent judgment, (even though it has reached the right result) has dealt with an earlier binding Division Bench judgment of the same High Court. In fact, as was pointed out to us by learned counsel for the appellants, the distinction made in paragraph 20 between the facts of the earlier judgment and the facts in the later judgment is not a distinction at all. Just as in the 2012 judgment Ph.D. degrees had been awarded prior to 2009, even in the 2014 judgment Ph.D. degrees with which that judgment was concerned were also granted prior to 2009. There is, therefore, no distinction between the facts of the two cases. What is even more distressing is that only sub para 4 of the conclusion in the 2012 judgment is set out without any of the other sub paragraphs of Paragraph 104 extracted above to arrive at a result which is the exact opposite of the earlier judgment. This judgment is also set aside only for the reason that it did not follow an earlier binding judgment. This will, 29

however, not impact the fact that the writ petitions in the 2014 judgment have been dismissed. They stand dismissed having regard to the reasoning in the judgment delivered by us today. In view of this pronouncement, nothing survives in Contempt Petition Nos. 286-287 of 2014 which are disposed of as having become infructuous. The other appeals from the Delhi, Madras and Rajasthan High Courts are, consequently, also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. …………………….J. (T.S. Thakur) …………………….J. (R.F. Nariman) New Delhi; March 16, 2015. 30

(REVISED) ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.13 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 2891-2900/2015(@ SLP (C) Nos.36023-36032/2010) P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNIV.GRANTS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s) WITH Civil Appeal No.2901/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 10247/2011 Civil Appeal No. 2902/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 14985/2011 Civil Appeal No. 2903/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 34196/2012 Civil Appeal No.2904-2906/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 36362-36364/2012 Civil Appeal No.2907-2908/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 38991-38992/2012 Civil Appeal No. 2909/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 1529/2013 Civil Appeal No. 2910/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 1817/2013 Civil Appeal No.2911/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 4619/2013 Civil Appeal No. 2912/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 4925/2013 Civil Appeal No.2913/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 17939/2013 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 286-287/2014 In SLP(C) No. 3054-3055/2014 Civil Appeal No. 2914-2915/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 3054-3055/2014 Civil Appeal No.2916/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 3753/2014 Date : 16/03/2015 These appeals and petition were called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Parties Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar,Adv. 31

Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,Adv. Ms. Arti Gupta,Adv. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia,Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv. Mr. Ravinder Agarwal,Adv. Mr. G. S. Mani, Adv. Mr. Jitenu Chauhan, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash,Adv. Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shamshery, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Surya Kant,Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. Mr. T. V. George,Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. F. Nariman pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. S. Thakur and His Lordship. Leave granted. The impleadment applications are allowed. Allahabad High Court judgment dated 6 th April, 2012 is set aside and in Civil Appeal No. 2914-2915/2015 @ SLP (C) Nos.3054-3055/2014, judgment of the same High Court dated 6 th January, 2014 is also set aside, Contempt Petition Nos. 286-287 of 2014 are disposed of as having become infructuous in terms of the signed reportable judgment. The other appeals from the Delhi, Madras and Rajasthan High Courts are dismissed in terms of signed reportable judgment. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Suman Jain) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.] 32

ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.13 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 2891-2900/2015(@ SLP (C) Nos.36023-36032/2010) P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNIV.GRANTS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s) WITH Civil Appeal No.2901/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 10247/2011 Civil Appeal No. 2902/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 14985/2011 Civil Appeal No. 2903/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 34196/2012 Civil Appeal No.2904-2906/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 36362-36364/2012 Civil Appeal No.2907-2908/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 38991-38992/2012 Civil Appeal No. 2909/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 1529/2013 Civil Appeal No. 2910/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 1817/2013 Civil Appeal No.2911/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 4619/2013 Civil Appeal No. 2912/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 4925/2013 Civil Appeal No.2913/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 17939/2013 CONMT.PET.(C) No. 286-287/2014 In SLP(C) No. 3054-3055/2014 Civil Appeal No. 2914-2915/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 3054-3055/2014 Civil Appeal No.2916/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 3753/2014 Date : 16/03/2015 These appeals and petition were called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Parties Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv. 33

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,Adv. Ms. Arti Gupta,Adv. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia,Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv. Mr. Ravinder Agarwal,Adv. Mr. G. S. Mani, Adv. Mr. Jitenu Chauhan, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash,Adv. Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shamshery, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Surya Kant,Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. Mr. T. V. George,Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. F. Nariman pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. S. Thakur and His Lordship. Leave granted. Allahabad High Court judgment dated 6 th April, 2012 is set aside and in Civil Appeal No. 2914-2915/2015 @ SLP (C) Nos.3054-3055/2014, judgment of the same High Court dated 6 th January, 2014 is also set aside, Contempt Petition Nos. 286-287 of 2014 are disposed of as having become infructuous in terms of the signed reportable judgment. The other appeals from the Delhi, Madras and Rajasthan High Courts are dismissed in terms of signed reportable judgment. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Suman Jain) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.] 34

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. _________ OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.36023-36032 OF 2010] P. SUSEELA & ORS. ETC. ETC. …APPELLANTS VERSUS UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ORS. ETC. ETC. …RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. __OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.10247 OF 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO. __OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.14985 OF 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO. __OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.34196 OF 2012] CIVIL APPEAL NOS. __OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.36362-36364 OF 2012] CIVIL APPEAL NOS. __OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.38991-38992 OF 2012] CIVIL APPEAL NO. __OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.1529 OF 2013] CIVIL APPEAL NO. __OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.1817 OF 2013] 1

CIVIL APPEAL NO. __OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.4619 OF 2013] CIVIL APPEAL NO. __OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.4925 OF 2013] CIVIL APPEAL NO. __OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.17939 OF 2013] CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.286-287 OF 2014 IN SLP (C) NOS.3054-3055 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. __OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.3054-3055 OF 2014] CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.3753 OF 2014] J U D G M E N T R.F.Nariman, J. 1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 2. A large number of appeals are before us in which the judgments of four High Courts are assailed. The High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 6 th December, 2010 was faced with the constitutional validity of the University Grants Commission Regulations (Minimum Qualifications Required for the Appointment And Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (the third 2

Amendment) Regulation 2009 under which NET/SLET is to be the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. The challenge was repelled saying that the Regulations do not violate Article 14 and are, in fact, prospective inasmuch as they apply only to appointments made after the date of the notification and do not apply to appointments made prior to that date. Along the lines of the Delhi High Court, the Madras and Rajasthan High Courts have also repelled challenges to the aforesaid regulations vide their judgments dated 6 th December, 2010 and 13 th September, 2012. On the other hand, the Allahabad High Court in a judgment dated 6 th April, 2012 has found that the said regulations were issued pursuant to directions of the Central Government which themselves were issued outside the powers conferred by the UGC Act and, hence, the eligibility conditions laid down would not apply to M. Phil. and Ph.D. degrees awarded prior to 31 st December, 2009. However, a subsequent judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 6 th January, 2014 distinguished the aforesaid judgment and upheld the self-same regulations. Whereas the Union of 3

India is in appeal before us from the Allahabad High Court judgment dated 6 th April, 2012, M.Phil. degree holders and Ph.D. degree holders who have not yet been appointed as Assistant Professors in any University/College/Institution are the appellants before us in all the other appeals. 3. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy in these appeals are as follows:- The University Grants Commission Act, 1956, was enacted by Parliament to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in Universities being enacted under Entry 66 List I, Schedule VII to the Constitution of India. By Section 4 of the Act, a University Grants Commission is established to carry out the functions entrusted to it by Section 12 of the Act. We are directly concerned in these appeals with two Sections of this Act, namely, Sections 20 and 26:- 20. Directions by the Central Government .—(1) In the discharge of its functions under this Act, the Commission shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes as may be given to it by the Central Government. 4

(2) If any dispute arises between the Central Government and the Commission as to whether a question is or is not a question of policy relating to national purposes, the decision of the Central Government shall be final. 26. Power to make regulations .—(1) The Commission may [, by notification in the Official Gazette,] make regulations consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder,— ( a ) regulating the meetings of the Commission and the procedure for conducting business thereat; ( b ) regulating the manner in which and the purposes for which persons may be associated with the Commission under Section 9; ( c ) specifying the terms and conditions of service of the employees appointed by the Commission; ( d ) specifying the institutions or class of institutions which may be recognised by the Commission under clause ( f ) of Section 2; ( e ) defining 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 instruction; ( f ) defining the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any University; ( g ) regulating the maintenance of standards and the co-ordination of work or facilities in Universities. 5

[( h ) regulating the establishment of institutions referred to in clause ( ccc ) of Section 12 and other matters relating to such institutions; ( i ) specifying the matters in respect of which fees may be charged, and scales of fees in accordance with which fees may be charged, by a college under sub-section (2) of Section 12-A; ( j ) specifying the manner in which an inquiry may be conducted under sub-section (4) of Section 12-A.] (2) No regulation shall be made under clause ( a ) or clause ( b ) or clause ( c ) or clause ( d ) [or clause ( h ) or clause ( i ) or clause ( j )] of sub-section (1) except with the previous approval of the Central Government. (3) The power to make regulations conferred by this section [except clause ( i ) and clause ( j ) of sub- section (1)] shall include the power to give retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, to the regulations or any of them but no retrospective effect shall be given to any regulation so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such regulation may be applicable. 4. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 26(1)(e) of the said Act, the UGC framed regulations in 1982 prescribing the qualification for the teaching post of Lecturer in colleges as follows:- 6

“ M. Phil. degree or a recognised degree beyond Master’s level”. In 1986, the Malhotra Committee was appointed by the UGC to examine various features of University and College education. It recommended that there should be certain minimum qualifications laid down for the post of Lecturer. Pursuant to the said Committee report, the UGC framed regulations on 19 th September, 1991 superseding the 1982 regulations and providing apart from other qualifications, clearing of the NET as a test for eligibility to become a Lecturer. Vide an amendment dated 21 st June, 1995, a proviso was added to the 1991 regulations by which candidates who have submitted their Ph.D. thesis or passed the M. Phil. examination on or before 31 st December, 1993 are exempted from the said eligibility test for appointment to the post of Lecturer. This continued till 2002, the only change made being that the exemption continued qua Ph.D. thesis holders for dates that were extended till 31 st December, 2002. This state of affairs continued until 2008 when the Mungekar Committee submitted its final report recommending that NET should be made a compulsory requirement for appointment of Lecturer in addition 7

to the candidate possessing M.Phil. or Ph.D degrees. On 12 th November, 2008, the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, issued a directive under Section 22 of the UGC Act providing inter alia as under:- “ UGC shall, for serving the national purpose of maintaining standards of higher education, frame appropriate regulations within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of this order prescribing that qualifying in NET/SLET shall generally be compulsory for all persons appointed to teaching positions of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Higher Education, and only persons who possess degree of Ph.D. after having been enrolled/ admitted to a programme notified by the Commission, after it has satisfied itself on the basis of expert opinion, as to be or have always been in conformity with the procedure of standardization of Ph.D. prescribed by it, and also that the degree of Ph.D. was awarded by a University or Institution Deemed to be University notified by the UGC as having already complied with the procedure prescribed under the regulations framed by the Commission for the purpose.” 5. In pursuance of the said directive, the UGC promulgated the impugned Regulations of 2009, the 3 rd Amendment of which provides as follows:- “ NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/ Institutions. 8

Provided, however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded Ph.D. Degree in compliance of the “University Grants Commission (minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D. Degree), Regulation 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent position in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.” The proviso referred to a number of new conditions relating to the maximum number of Ph.D. students at any given point of time, stringent admission criteria for a Ph.D. degree, research papers being published, the Ph.D. thesis being evaluated by at least two experts, one of whom shall be an expert from outside the State etc. 6. This was followed by another directive dated 30 th March, 2010 by the Ministry under Section 20 of the Act directing the UGC as follows:- “ The Ministry of Human Resource Development issued another order dated 30.3.2010 under Section 20 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 directing the UGC as follows: (i) That the UGC shall not take up specific cases for exemption from the application of the NET Regulations of 2009 after the said Regulations have come into force, for either specific persons or for a specific university/institution/college from the 9

application of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for appointment and career advancement of teachers in universities and colleges) 3rd Amendment Regulations, 2009 for appointment as Lecturer in universities/colleges/institutions; (ii) That appropriate amendment to the second proviso to clause 2 of the UGC Regulations 2000 shall be made by UGC to give full effect to the policy directions issued by the Central Government dated 12th November, 2008, within 30 days from the date of issue of this direction; and (iii) That the decision taken by the UGC in it's 468th meeting held on 23rd February, 2010 vide agenda item no. 6.04 and 6.05 to grant specific exemptions from the applicability of NET shall not be implemented as being contrary to national policy. The above said directions shall be implemented by the UGC forthwith.” 7. Pursuant to this directive, on 30 th June, 2010, the UGC framed Regulations of 2010, para 3.3.1 of which states: “ 3.3.1. NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. Provided however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment 10

of Assistant Professor equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/ Institutions.” 8. By two resolutions dated 12 th August, 2010 and 27 th September, 2010, the UGC opined that since the regulations are prospective in nature, all candidates having M. Phil. degree on or before 10 th July, 2009 and all persons who obtained the Ph.D. degree on or before 31 st December, 2009 and had registered themselves for the Ph.D. before this date, but are awarded such degree subsequently shall remain exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor. 9. The Central Government, however, by letter dated 3 rd November, 2010 informed the UGC that they were unable to agree with the decision of the Commission and stated that consequently a candidate seeking appointment to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor must fulfill the minimum qualifications prescribed by the UGC including the minimum eligibility condition of having passed the NET test. 11

10. Learned counsel assailing the Delhi, Madras and Rajasthan High Court judgments argued that Section 26(3) expressly entitles a regulation to be prospective but so as not to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such regulation may be applicable. They, therefore, argued that both under Article 14 as well as this sub-section, since all M.Phil. and Ph.D. holders had been repeatedly assured that they would be exempt from passing the NET exam if they were such holders prior to 2009, the regulations should not be so construed as to impose the burden of this examination upon them. They further argued that under Section 26(2), regulations made in pursuance of Section 26(1)(e) and (g) do not require the previous approval of the Central Government. Consequently, the impugned regulations are bad since they follow the dictate of the Central Government which is not required. Also, this would show that when it comes to qualifications of persons to be appointed to the teaching staff, the UGC is an expert body to whom alone such qualifications and consequently exemptions from such qualifications should be left to decide. They also argued that there is a violation of 12

Article 14 in that unequals have been treated equally as those who passed their M. Phil. and Ph.D. degrees prior to 2009 fell in a separate class which had an intelligible differentia from those who did not so fall as has been maintained by the UGC from time to time. They strongly relied upon the judgment of this Court in University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary (1996) 10 SCC 536 for this proposition as well as the proposition that their legitimate expectation in the matter of appointment on the post of Lecturer had been done away with. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union of India and the UGC stressed the fact that under Section 26 regulations have to be made consistently with the Act and Section 20 is very much part of the Act. Therefore, if directions on questions of policy are made by the Central Government, regulations must necessarily be subordinate to such directions. It was also pointed out that if a question arises as to whether a subject matter is a question of policy relating to national purposes, the decision of the Central Government shall be final. They then relied upon Udai Singh Dagar v. Union of India (2007) 10 SCC 306, for the proposition that a person will have 13

the right to enter a profession only if he holds the requisite qualification and the holding of such qualification would be prospective if it is a qualification which is laid down any time before his entry into a profession. 12. It is clear that Section 26 enables the Commission to make regulations only if they are consistent with the UGC Act. This necessarily means that such regulations must conform to Section 20 of the Act and under Section 20 of the Act the Central Government is given the power to give directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes which shall guide the Commission in the discharge of its functions under the Act. It is clear, therefore, that both the directions of 12 th November, 2008 and 30 th March, 2010 are directions made pertaining to questions of policy relating to national purposes inasmuch as, being based on the Mungekar Committee Report, the Central Government felt that a common uniform nationwide test should be a minimum eligibility condition for recruitment for the appointment of Lecturer/Assistant Professors in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. This is for the obvious reason that M. Phil. degrees or Ph.D. degrees are granted by 14

different Universities/Institutions having differing standards of excellence. It is quite possible to conceive of M.Phil/ Ph.D. degrees being granted by several Universities which did not have stringent standards of excellence. Considering as a matter of policy that the appointment of Lecturers/ Assistant Professors in all institutions governed by the UGC Act (which are institutions all over the country), the need was felt to have in addition a national entrance test as a minimum eligibility condition being an additional qualification which has become necessary in view of wide disparities in the granting of M. Phil./ Ph.D. degrees by various Universities/ Institutions. The object sought to be achieved by these directions is clear: that all Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions governed by the UGC Act should have a certain minimum standard of excellence before they are appointed as such. These directions are not only made in exercise of powers under Section 20 of the Act but are made to provide for coordination and determination of standards which lies at the very core of the UGC Act. It is clear, therefore, that any regulation made 15

under Section 26 must conform to directions issued by the Central Government under Section 20 of the Act. 13. It was argued that since the previous approval of the Central Government was not necessary for regulations which define the qualifications required of persons to be appointed to the teaching staff of a University, the Government has no role to play in such matters and cannot dictate to the Commission. This argument does not hold water for the simple reason that it ignores the opening lines of Section 26(1) which states that the Commission can only make regulations consistent with the Act, which brings in the Central Government’s power under Section 20 of the Act, a power that is independent of sub-section (2) of Section 26. A regulation may not require the previous approval of the Central Government and may yet have to be in conformity with a direction issued under Section 20 of the Act. In fact, even where a regulation can only be made with the previous approval of the Central Government, the Central Government would have a role to play both before and after the regulation is made. In the first case, it would accord its previous approval to the regulation. Once the regulation 16

becomes law, it may issue directions under Section 20 pursuant to which the very same regulation may have to be modified or done away with to conform to such direction. It is clear, therefore, that Section 26(2) would not stand in the way of the directions issued in the present case by the Central Government to the Commission. 14. The other interesting argument made is that such regulations should not be given retrospective effect so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such regulation may be applicable. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to distinguish between an existing right and a vested right. This distinction was made with great felicity in Trimbak Damodhar Rajpurkar v. Assaram Hiraman Patil , 1962 Suppl. 1 SCR 700. In that case a question arose as to whether an amendment made to Section 5 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Amendment Act could be said to be retrospective because its operation took within its sweep existing rights. A bench of five Hon’ble Judges of this Court held that Section 5 had no retrospective operation. This Court held: 17

“ Besides, it is necessary to bear in mind that the right of the appellant to eject the respondents would arise only on the termination of the tenancy, and in the present case it would have been available to him on March 31, 1953 if the statutory provision had not in the meanwhile extended the life of the tenancy. It is true that the appellant gave notice to the respondents on March 11, 1952 as he was then no doubt entitled to do; but his right as a landlord to obtain possession did not accrue merely on the giving of the notice, it accrued in his favour on the date when the lease expired. It is only after the period specified in the notice is over and the tenancy has in fact expired that the landlord gets a right to eject the tenant and obtain possession of the land. Considered from this point of view, before the right accrued to the appellant to eject the respondents amending Act 33 of 1952 stepped in and deprived him of that right by requiring him to comply with the statutory requirement as to a valid notice which has to be given for ejecting tenants. In this connection it is relevant to distinguish between an existing right and a vested right. Where a statute operates in future it cannot be said to be retrospective merely because within the sweep of its operation all existing rights are included. As observed by Buckley, L.J. in West v. Gwynne [ (1911) 2 Ch 1 at pp 11, 12] retrospective operation is one matter and interference with existing rights is another. “If an Act provides that as at a past date the law shall be taken to have been that which it was not, that Act I understand to be retrospective. That is not this case. The question here is whether a certain provision as to the contents of leases is addressed to the case of all leases or only of some, namely, leases executed after the passing of the Act. The question is as to the ambit and scope of the Act, and not as to the date as from which the new law, 18

as enacted by the Act, is to be taken to have been the law.” These observations were made in dealing with the question as to the retrospective construction of Section 3 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 13). In substance Section 3 provided that in all leases containing a covenant, condition or agreement against assigning, underletting, or parting with the possession, or disposing of the land or property leased without licence or consent, such covenant, condition or agreement shall, unless the lease contains an expressed provision to the contrary, be deemed to be subject to a proviso to the effect that no fine or sum of money in the nature of a fine shall be payable for or in respect of such licence or consent. It was held that the provisions of the said section applied to all leases whether executed before or after the commencement of the Act; and, according to Buckley, L.J., this construction did not make the Act retrospective in operation; it merely affected in future existing rights under all leases whether executed before or after the date of the Act. The position in regard to the operation of Section 5(1) of the amending Act with which we are concerned appears to us to be substantially similar. A similar question had been raised for the decision of this Court in Jivabhai Purshottam v. Chhagan Karson [ Civil Appeal No 153 of 1958 decided on 27-3-1961] in regard to the retrospective operation of Section 34(2)( a ) of the said amending Act 33 of 1952 and this Court has approved of the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court on that point in Durlabbha Fakirbhai v. Jhaverbhai Bhikabhai [ (1956) 58 BLR 85] . It was held in Durlabbhai case [ (1956) 58 BLR 85] that the relevant provision of the amending Act would apply to all proceedings where the period of notice had expired after the amending Act had come into force and that the effect of the amending 19

Act was no more than this that it imposed a new and additional limitation on the right of the landlord to obtain possession from his tenant. It was observed in that judgment that “a notice under Section 34(1) is merely a declaration to the tenant of the intention of the landlord to terminate the tenancy; but it is always open to the landlord not to carry out his intention. Therefore, for the application of the restriction under sub-section 2( a ) on the right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy, the crucial date is not the date of notice but the date on which the right to terminate matures; that is the date on which the tenancy stands terminated”. 15. Similar is the case on facts here. A vested right would arise only if any of the appellants before us had actually been appointed to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professors. Till that date, there is no vested right in any of the appellants. At the highest, the appellants could only contend that they have a right to be considered for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor. This right is always subject to minimum eligibility conditions, and till such time as the appellants are appointed, different conditions may be laid down at different times. Merely because an additional eligibility condition in the form of a NET test is laid down, it does not mean that any vested right of the appellants is affected, nor does it mean that the regulation laying down such 20

minimum eligibility condition would be retrospective in operation. Such condition would only be prospective as it would apply only at the stage of appointment. It is clear, therefore, that the contentions of the private appellants before us must fail. 16. One of the learned counsel for the petitioners argued, based on the language of the direction of the Central Government dated 12 th November, 2008 that all that the Government wanted the UGC to do was to “generally” prescribe NET as a qualification. But this did not mean that UGC had to prescribe this qualification without providing for any exemption. We are unable to accede to this argument for the simple reason that the word “generally” precedes the word “compulsory” and it is clear that the language of the direction has been followed both in letter and in spirit by the UGC regulations of 2009 and 2010. 17. The arguments based on Article 14 equally have to be rejected. It is clear that the object of the directions of the Central Government read with the UGC regulations of 2009/2010 are to maintain excellence in standards of higher 21

education. Keeping this object in mind, a minimum eligibility condition of passing the national eligibility test is laid down. True, there may have been exemptions laid down by the UGC in the past, but the Central Government now as a matter of policy feels that any exemption would compromise the excellence of teaching standards in Universities/Colleges/ Institutions governed by the UGC. Obviously, there is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory in this – in fact it is a core function of the UGC to see that such standards do not get diluted. 18. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has been dealt with in two judgments of this Court as follows: In Union of India v. International Trading Company (2003) 5 SCC 437, it was held: “ 23. Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. In determining whether there is any unfairness involved; the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, 22

the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing condition at the relevant time, enter into judicial verdict. The reasonableness of the legitimate expectation has to be determined with respect to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question. Canalisation of a particular business in favour of even a specified individual is reasonable where the interests of the country are concerned or where the business affects the economy of the country. (See Parbhani Transport Coop. Society Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority [AIR 1960 SC 801 : 62 Bom LR 521] , Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [(1974) 1 SCC 468 : AIR 1974 SC 366] , Hari Chand Sarda v. Mizo District Council [AIR 1967 SC 829] and Krishnan Kakkanth v. Govt. of Kerala [(1997) 9 SCC 495 : AIR 1997 SC 128].” 19. Similarly, in Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA (2009) 1 SCC 180, it was held:- “ 33. It is well settled that the concept of legitimate expectation has no role to play where the State action is as a public policy or in the public interest unless the action taken amounts to an abuse of power. The court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority which is empowered to take the decisions under law and the court is expected to apply an objective standard which leaves to the deciding authority the full range of choice which the legislature is presumed to have intended. Even in a case where the decision is left entirely to the discretion of the deciding authority without any such legal bounds and if the decision is taken fairly and objectively, the court will not interfere on the ground of procedural fairness to a person whose interest based on legitimate expectation might be affected. 23

Therefore, a legitimate expectation can at the most be one of the grounds which may give rise to judicial review but the granting of relief is very much limited.(Vide Hindustan Development Corpn. [(1993) 3 SCC 499]” 20. In University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary (1996) 10 SCC, 536, it is true that in paragraph 22, some of the very appellants before us are referred to as having a legitimate expectation in the matter of appointment to the post of Lecturer in Universities/Colleges, but that case would have no direct application here. There a challenge was made to exemptions granted at that time to Ph.D. holders and M. Phil. degree holders. It was found that such exemption had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved at that point of time, being based on an intelligible differentia. An Article 14 challenge to the said exemption was, therefore, repelled. Even assuming that the said judgment would continue to apply even after the 2009 Regulations, a legitimate expectation must always yield to the larger public interest. The larger public interest in the present case is nothing less than having highly qualified Assistant Professors to teach in UGC Institutions. 24

Even if, therefore, the private appellants before us had a legitimate expectation that given the fact that the UGC granted them an exemption from the NET and continued to state that such exemption should continue to be granted even after the Government direction of 12 th November, 2008 would have to yield to the larger public interest of selection of the most meritorious among candidates to teach in Institutions governed by the UGC Act. 21. The Allahabad High Court in its judgment dated 6 th April, 2012 has held as follows: “ 104. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 20 (1) of UGC Act, 1956, does not possess powers and authority to set aside or annul the recommendations of the University Grants Commission, and the regulations made by it under Section 26 (1) (e) of the Act defining the qualification, that should ordinarily be required to be possessed by any person to be appointed to the teaching posts of the University, for which under Section 26 (2) of the UGC Act, 1956, the previous approval of the Central Government is not required. 2. The exemptions given by UGC to those, who were awarded Ph.D degrees prior to 31.12.2009 before the enforcement of the Regulations of 2009, is not a question of policy relating to national 25

purpose on which the Central Government could have issued directions under Section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956. 3. The UGC is an expert body constituted with specialists in laying down standards and for promotion and coordination of University education. The recommendations made by it in the matters of qualifications and the limited exemptions of such qualifications for appointment for teachers in Universities taken after constituting expert Committees and considering their recommendations is not subject to supervision and control by the Central Government. The Central Government in the matters of laying down minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers in the University, does not possess any supervisory powers, to annul the resolutions of UGC. 4. The Ph.D holders, who were awarded Ph.D degrees prior to 31.12.2009, cannot be said to have legitimate expectation maturing into any right to be considered for appointment on teaching posts in the University, without obtaining the NET/SLET/SET qualifications, unless the UGC has provided for any exemptions. 5. The resolution on agenda item no. 6.04 and 6.05 in the 468th meeting of the UGC held on 23.2.2010, and the resolution of UGC in its 471st meeting on agenda item no. 2.08 dated 12.8.2010 recommending the 3rd Amendments to the Regulations of 2009 to be prospective in nature, is binding on the Universities including the University of Allahabad. 6. The petitioners were awarded Ph.D degrees in the year 2009 and in the year 2003 respectively prior to enforcement of the 3rd Amendment in the regulations, which came into force on 31.12.2009, and thus they are eligible, even if they are not 26

NET/SLET/SET qualified, if they have been awarded Ph.D degree with any six conditions out of 11 recommended by the UGC prior to 31.12.2009. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioners are held eligible for consideration for appointment as Lecturer for guest faculty in the Department of Sanskrit of the University, provided they satisfy any of the six tests out of eleven, laid down by the UGC, and which are made essential for award of Ph.D degree under the 3rd Amendment of the Regulations of 2009. It will be open to the University to consider from the material produced by the petitioners, that they satisfy six out of eleven tests recommended by the University Grants Commission for award of their Ph.D.” 22. We have already pointed out how the directions of the Central Government under Section 20 of the UGC Act pertain to questions of policy relating to national purpose. We have also pointed out that the regulation making power is subservient to directions issued under Section 20 of the Act. The fact that the UGC is an expert body does not take the matter any further. The UGC Act contemplates that such expert body will have to act in accordance with directions issued by the Central Government. 27

23. The Allahabad High Court adverted to an expert committee under the Chairmanship of Professor S.P. Thyagarajan which laid down that if six out of eleven criteria laid down by the Committee was satisfied when such University granted a Ph.D. degree, then such Ph.D. degree should be sufficient to qualify such person for appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor without the further qualification of having to pass the NET test. The UGC itself does not appear to have given effect to this recommendation of the Thyagarajan Committee. However, the High Court thought it fit to give effect to this Committee’s recommendation in the final directions issued by it. When the UGC itself has not accepted the recommendations of the said Committee, we do not understand how the High Court sought to give effect to such recommendations. We, therefore, set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment dated 6 th April, 2012 in its entirety. 24. In SLP (C) NO.3054-3055/2014, a judgment of the same High Court dated 6 th January, 2014 again by a Division Bench arrived at the opposite conclusion. This is also a matter which causes us some distress. A Division Bench judgment of the 28

same High Court is binding on a subsequent Division Bench. The subsequent Division Bench can either follow it or refer such judgment to the Chief Justice to constitute a Full Bench if it differs with it. We do not appreciate the manner in which this subsequent judgment, (even though it has reached the right result) has dealt with an earlier binding Division Bench judgment of the same High Court. In fact, as was pointed out to us by learned counsel for the appellants, the distinction made in paragraph 20 between the facts of the earlier judgment and the facts in the later judgment is not a distinction at all. Just as in the 2012 judgment Ph.D. degrees had been awarded prior to 2009, even in the 2014 judgment Ph.D. degrees with which that judgment was concerned were also granted prior to 2009. There is, therefore, no distinction between the facts of the two cases. What is even more distressing is that only sub para 4 of the conclusion in the 2012 judgment is set out without any of the other sub paragraphs of Paragraph 104 extracted above to arrive at a result which is the exact opposite of the earlier judgment. This judgment is also set aside only for the reason that it did not follow an earlier binding judgment. This will, 29

however, not impact the fact that the writ petitions in the 2014 judgment have been dismissed. They stand dismissed having regard to the reasoning in the judgment delivered by us today. In view of this pronouncement, nothing survives in Contempt Petition Nos. 286-287 of 2014 which are disposed of as having become infructuous. The other appeals from the Delhi, Madras and Rajasthan High Courts are, consequently, also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. …………………….J. (T.S. Thakur) …………………….J. (R.F. Nariman) New Delhi; March 16, 2015. 30

˜\211 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2891-2900 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.36023-36032 OF 2010] P. SUSEELA & ORS. ETC. ETC. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ORS. ETC. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2901 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.10247 OF 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2902 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.14985 OF 2011] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2903 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.34196 OF 2012] CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2904-2906 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.36362-36364 OF 2012] CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2907-2908 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.38991-38992 OF 2012] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2909 OF 2015Signature Not Verified [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.1529 OF 2013]Digitally signed by CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2910 OF 2015Meenakshi KohliDate: 2015.07.0717:32:02 ISTReason: [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.1817 OF 2013] 1 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2911 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.4619 OF 2013] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2912 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.4925 OF 2013] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2913 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.17939 OF 2013] CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.286-287 OF 2014 IN SLP (C) NOS.3054-3055 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2914-2915 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.3054-3055 OF 2014] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2916 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.3753 OF 2014]

JUDGMENTR.F.Nariman, J.1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.2. A large number of appeals are before us in which thejudgments of four High Courts are assailed. The High Court ofDelhi in its judgment dated 6 th December, 2010 was faced withthe constitutional validity of the University Grants CommissionRegulations (Minimum Qualifications Required for theAppointment And Career Advancement of Teachers inUniversities and Institutions affiliated to it) (the third 2Amendment) Regulation 2009 under which NET/SLET is to bethe minimum eligibility condition for recruitment andappointment of Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.The challenge was repelled saying that the Regulations do notviolate Article 14 and are, in fact, prospective inasmuch as theyapply only to appointments made after the date of thenotification and do not apply to appointments made prior to thatdate. Along the lines of the Delhi High Court, the Madras andRajasthan High Courts have also repelled challenges to theaforesaid regulations vide their judgments dated 6th December,2010 and 13th September, 2012. On the other hand, theAllahabad High Court in a judgment dated 6 th April, 2012 hasfound that the said regulations were issued pursuant todirections of the Central Government which themselves wereissued outside the powers conferred by the UGC Act and,hence, the eligibility conditions laid down would not apply to M.Phil. and Ph.D. degrees awarded prior to 31 st December, 2009.However, a subsequent judgment of the Allahabad High Courtdated 6th January, 2014 distinguished the aforesaid judgmentand upheld the self-same regulations. Whereas the Union of 3India is in appeal before us from the Allahabad High Court

judgment dated 6th April, 2012, M.Phil. degree holders andPh.D. degree holders who have not yet been appointed asAssistant Professors in any University/College/Institution arethe appellants before us in all the other appeals.3. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy inthese appeals are as follows:-The University Grants Commission Act, 1956, was enacted byParliament to make provision for the coordination anddetermination of standards in Universities being enacted underEntry 66 List I, Schedule VII to the Constitution of India. BySection 4 of the Act, a University Grants Commission isestablished to carry out the functions entrusted to it by Section12 of the Act. We are directly concerned in these appeals withtwo Sections of this Act, namely, Sections 20 and 26:- 20. Directions by the Central Government.--(1) In the discharge of its functions under this Act, the Commission shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes as may be given to it by the Central Government. 4(2) If any dispute arises between the CentralGovernment and the Commission as to whether aquestion is or is not a question of policy relating tonational purposes, the decision of the CentralGovernment shall be final.26. Power to make regulations.--(1) TheCommission may [, by notification in the OfficialGazette,] make regulations consistent with this Actand the rules made thereunder,--(a) regulating the meetings of the Commission andthe procedure for conducting business thereat;(b) regulating the manner in which and the purposesfor which persons may be associated with theCommission under Section 9;(c) specifying the terms and conditions of service ofthe employees appointed by the Commission;(d) specifying the institutions or class of institutionswhich may be recognised by the Commission underclause (f) of Section 2;(e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarilybe required of any person to be appointed to theteaching staff of the University, having regard to thebranch of education in which he is expected to giveinstruction;(f) defining the minimum standards of instruction forthe grant of any degree by any University;(g) regulating the maintenance of standards and theco-ordination of work or facilities in Universities.

5 [(h) regulating the establishment of institutions referred to in clause (ccc) of Section 12 and other matters relating to such institutions; (i) specifying the matters in respect of which fees may be charged, and scales of fees in accordance with which fees may be charged, by a college under sub-section (2) of Section 12-A; (j) specifying the manner in which an inquiry may be conducted under sub-section (4) of Section 12-A.] (2) No regulation shall be made under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) [or clause (h) or clause (i) or clause (j)] of sub-section (1) except with the previous approval of the Central Government. (3) The power to make regulations conferred by this section [except clause (i) and clause (j) of sub-section (1)] shall include the power to give retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, to the regulations or any of them but no retrospective effect shall be given to any regulation so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such regulation may be applicable.4. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 26(1)(e) ofthe said Act, the UGC framed regulations in 1982 prescribingthe qualification for the teaching post of Lecturer in colleges asfollows:- 6"M. Phil. degree or a recognised degree beyond Master's level".In 1986, the Malhotra Committee was appointed by the UGC toexamine various features of University and College education.It recommended that there should be certain minimumqualifications laid down for the post of Lecturer. Pursuant to thesaid Committee report, the UGC framed regulations on 19 thSeptember, 1991 superseding the 1982 regulations andproviding apart from other qualifications, clearing of the NET asa test for eligibility to become a Lecturer. Vide an amendmentdated 21st June, 1995, a proviso was added to the 1991regulations by which candidates who have submitted theirPh.D. thesis or passed the M. Phil. examination on or before31st December, 1993 are exempted from the said eligibility testfor appointment to the post of Lecturer. This continued till 2002,the only change made being that the exemption continued quaPh.D. thesis holders for dates that were extended till 31 st

December, 2002. This state of affairs continued until 2008 whenthe Mungekar Committee submitted its final reportrecommending that NET should be made a compulsoryrequirement for appointment of Lecturer in addition to the 7candidate possessing M.Phil. or Ph.D degrees. On 12 thNovember, 2008, the Department of Higher Education, Ministryof Human Resources Development, Government of India,issued a directive under Section 22 of the UGC Act providinginter alia as under:- "UGC shall, for serving the national purpose of maintaining standards of higher education, frame appropriate regulations within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of this order prescribing that qualifying in NET/SLET shall generally be compulsory for all persons appointed to teaching positions of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Higher Education, and only persons who possess degree of Ph.D. after having been enrolled/ admitted to a programme notified by the Commission, after it has satisfied itself on the basis of expert opinion, as to be or have always been in conformity with the procedure of standardization of Ph.D. prescribed by it, and also that the degree of Ph.D. was awarded by a University or Institution Deemed to be University notified by the UGC as having already complied with the procedure prescribed under the regulations framed by the Commission for the purpose."5. In pursuance of the said directive, the UGCpromulgated the impugned Regulations of 2009, the 3 rdAmendment of which provides as follows:- "NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/ Institutions. 8 Provided, however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded Ph.D. Degree in compliance of the "University Grants Commission (minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D. Degree), Regulation 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent position in Universities/Colleges/Institutions." The proviso referred to a number of new conditionsrelating to the maximum number of Ph.D. students at any givenpoint of time, stringent admission criteria for a Ph.D. degree,

research papers being published, the Ph.D. thesis beingevaluated by at least two experts, one of whom shall be anexpert from outside the State etc.6. This was followed by another directive dated 30 th March,2010 by the Ministry under Section 20 of the Act directing theUGC as follows:- "The Ministry of Human Resource Development issued another order dated 30.3.2010 under Section 20 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 directing the UGC as follows: (i) That the UGC shall not take up specific cases for exemption from the application of the NET Regulations of 2009 after the said Regulations have come into force, for either specific persons or for a specific university/institution/college from the 9 application of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for appointment and career advancement of teachers in universities and colleges) 3rd Amendment Regulations, 2009 for appointment as Lecturer in universities/colleges/institutions; (ii) That appropriate amendment to the second proviso to clause 2 of the UGC Regulations 2000 shall be made by UGC to give full effect to the policy directions issued by the Central Government dated 12th November, 2008, within 30 days from the date of issue of this direction; and (iii) That the decision taken by the UGC in it's 468th meeting held on 23rd February, 2010 vide agenda item no. 6.04 and 6.05 to grant specific exemptions from the applicability of NET shall not be implemented as being contrary to national policy. The above said directions shall be implemented by the UGC forthwith."7. Pursuant to this directive, on 30 th June, 2010, the UGCframed Regulations of 2010, para 3.3.1 of which states: "3.3.1. NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. Provided however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment 10 of Assistant Professor equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/ Institutions."8. By two resolutions dated 12 th August, 2010 and 27th

September, 2010, the UGC opined that since the regulationsare prospective in nature, all candidates having M. Phil. degreeon or before 10th July, 2009 and all persons who obtained thePh.D. degree on or before 31st December, 2009 and hadregistered themselves for the Ph.D. before this date, but areawarded such degree subsequently shall remain exemptedfrom the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment asLecturer/Assistant Professor.9. The Central Government, however, by letter dated 3 rdNovember, 2010 informed the UGC that they were unable toagree with the decision of the Commission and stated thatconsequently a candidate seeking appointment to the post ofLecturer/Assistant Professor must fulfill the minimumqualifications prescribed by the UGC including the minimumeligibility condition of having passed the NET test. 1110. Learned counsel assailing the Delhi, Madras andRajasthan High Court judgments argued that Section 26(3)expressly entitles a regulation to be prospective but so as not toprejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom suchregulation may be applicable. They, therefore, argued that bothunder Article 14 as well as this sub-section, since all M.Phil.and Ph.D. holders had been repeatedly assured that they wouldbe exempt from passing the NET exam if they were suchholders prior to 2009, the regulations should not be soconstrued as to impose the burden of this examination uponthem. They further argued that under Section 26(2), regulationsmade in pursuance of Section 26(1)(e) and (g) do not requirethe previous approval of the Central Government.Consequently, the impugned regulations are bad since theyfollow the dictate of the Central Government which is notrequired. Also, this would show that when it comes toqualifications of persons to be appointed to the teaching staff,

the UGC is an expert body to whom alone such qualificationsand consequently exemptions from such qualifications shouldbe left to decide. They also argued that there is a violation of 12Article 14 in that unequals have been treated equally as thosewho passed their M. Phil. and Ph.D. degrees prior to 2009 fellin a separate class which had an intelligible differentia fromthose who did not so fall as has been maintained by the UGCfrom time to time. They strongly relied upon the judgment ofthis Court in University Grants Commission v. SadhanaChaudhary (1996) 10 SCC 536 for this proposition as well asthe proposition that their legitimate expectation in the matter ofappointment on the post of Lecturer had been done away with.11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union of Indiaand the UGC stressed the fact that under Section 26regulations have to be made consistently with the Act andSection 20 is very much part of the Act. Therefore, if directionson questions of policy are made by the Central Government,regulations must necessarily be subordinate to such directions.It was also pointed out that if a question arises as to whether asubject matter is a question of policy relating to nationalpurposes, the decision of the Central Government shall be final.They then relied upon Udai Singh Dagar v. Union of India(2007) 10 SCC 306, for the proposition that a person will have 13the right to enter a profession only if he holds the requisitequalification and the holding of such qualification would beprospective if it is a qualification which is laid down any timebefore his entry into a profession.12. It is clear that Section 26 enables the Commission tomake regulations only if they are consistent with the UGC Act.This necessarily means that such regulations must conform toSection 20 of the Act and under Section 20 of the Act theCentral Government is given the power to give directions on

questions of policy relating to national purposes which shallguide the Commission in the discharge of its functions underthe Act. It is clear, therefore, that both the directions of 12 thNovember, 2008 and 30th March, 2010 are directions madepertaining to questions of policy relating to national purposesinasmuch as, being based on the Mungekar Committee Report,the Central Government felt that a common uniform nationwidetest should be a minimum eligibility condition for recruitment forthe appointment of Lecturer/Assistant Professors inUniversities/Colleges/Institutions. This is for the obvious reasonthat M. Phil. degrees or Ph.D. degrees are granted by different 14Universities/Institutions having differing standards ofexcellence. It is quite possible to conceive of M.Phil/ Ph.D.degrees being granted by several Universities which did nothave stringent standards of excellence. Considering as amatter of policy that the appointment of Lecturers/ AssistantProfessors in all institutions governed by the UGC Act (whichare institutions all over the country), the need was felt to have inaddition a national entrance test as a minimum eligibilitycondition being an additional qualification which has becomenecessary in view of wide disparities in the granting of M. Phil./Ph.D. degrees by various Universities/ Institutions. The objectsought to be achieved by these directions is clear: that allLecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions governed by theUGC Act should have a certain minimum standard ofexcellence before they are appointed as such. These directionsare not only made in exercise of powers under Section 20 ofthe Act but are made to provide for coordination anddetermination of standards which lies at the very core of theUGC Act. It is clear, therefore, that any regulation made under 15Section 26 must conform to directions issued by the CentralGovernment under Section 20 of the Act.

13. It was argued that since the previous approval of theCentral Government was not necessary for regulations whichdefine the qualifications required of persons to be appointed tothe teaching staff of a University, the Government has no role toplay in such matters and cannot dictate to the Commission.This argument does not hold water for the simple reason that itignores the opening lines of Section 26(1) which states that theCommission can only make regulations consistent with the Act,which brings in the Central Government's power under Section20 of the Act, a power that is independent of sub-section (2) ofSection 26. A regulation may not require the previous approvalof the Central Government and may yet have to be inconformity with a direction issued under Section 20 of the Act.In fact, even where a regulation can only be made with theprevious approval of the Central Government, the CentralGovernment would have a role to play both before and after theregulation is made. In the first case, it would accord itsprevious approval to the regulation. Once the regulation 16becomes law, it may issue directions under Section 20 pursuantto which the very same regulation may have to be modified ordone away with to conform to such direction. It is clear,therefore, that Section 26(2) would not stand in the way of thedirections issued in the present case by the CentralGovernment to the Commission.14. The other interesting argument made is that suchregulations should not be given retrospective effect so as toprejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom suchregulation may be applicable. In order to appreciate thiscontention, it is necessary to distinguish between an existingright and a vested right. This distinction was made with greatfelicity in Trimbak Damodhar Rajpurkar v. Assaram HiramanPatil, 1962 Suppl. 1 SCR 700. In that case a question arose asto whether an amendment made to Section 5 of the Bombay

Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Amendment Act could be saidto be retrospective because its operation took within its sweepexisting rights. A bench of five Hon'ble Judges of this Courtheld that Section 5 had no retrospective operation. This Courtheld: 17"Besides, it is necessary to bear in mind that theright of the appellant to eject the respondents wouldarise only on the termination of the tenancy, and inthe present case it would have been available tohim on March 31, 1953 if the statutory provision hadnot in the meanwhile extended the life of thetenancy. It is true that the appellant gave notice tothe respondents on March 11, 1952 as he was thenno doubt entitled to do; but his right as a landlord toobtain possession did not accrue merely on thegiving of the notice, it accrued in his favour on thedate when the lease expired. It is only after theperiod specified in the notice is over and thetenancy has in fact expired that the landlord gets aright to eject the tenant and obtain possession ofthe land. Considered from this point of view, beforethe right accrued to the appellant to eject therespondents amending Act 33 of 1952 stepped inand deprived him of that right by requiring him tocomply with the statutory requirement as to a validnotice which has to be given for ejecting tenants. In this connection it is relevant to distinguishbetween an existing right and a vested right. Wherea statute operates in future it cannot be said to beretrospective merely because within the sweep of itsoperation all existing rights are included. Asobserved by Buckley, L.J.in West v. Gwynne [ (1911) 2 Ch 1 at pp 11, 12]retrospective operation is one matter andinterference with existing rights is another. "If an Actprovides that as at a past date the law shall betaken to have been that which it was not, that Act Iunderstand to be retrospective. That is not thiscase. The question here is whether a certainprovision as to the contents of leases is addressedto the case of all leases or only of some, namely,leases executed after the passing of the Act. Thequestion is as to the ambit and scope of the Act,and not as to the date as from which the new law, 18as enacted by the Act, is to be taken to have beenthe law." These observations were made in dealingwith the question as to the retrospectiveconstruction of Section 3 of the Conveyancing andLaw of Property Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 13). Insubstance Section 3 provided that in all leasescontaining a covenant, condition or agreementagainst assigning, underletting, or parting with thepossession, or disposing of the land or propertyleased without licence or consent, such covenant,condition or agreement shall, unless the leasecontains an expressed provision to the contrary, bedeemed to be subject to a proviso to the effect thatno fine or sum of money in the nature of a fine shallbe payable for or in respect of such licence or

consent. It was held that the provisions of the saidsection applied to all leases whether executedbefore or after the commencement of the Act; and,according to Buckley, L.J., this construction did notmake the Act retrospective in operation; it merelyaffected in future existing rights under all leaseswhether executed before or after the date of the Act.The position in regard to the operation of Section5(1) of the amending Act with which we areconcerned appears to us to be substantially similar. A similar question had been raised for thedecision of this Court in JivabhaiPurshottam v. Chhagan Karson [ Civil Appeal No153 of 1958 decided on 27-3-1961] in regard to theretrospective operation of Section 34(2)(a) of thesaid amending Act 33 of 1952 and this Court hasapproved of the decision of the Full Bench of theBombay High Court on that point in DurlabbhaFakirbhai v. Jhaverbhai Bhikabhai [ (1956) 58 BLR85] . It was held in Durlabbhai case [ (1956) 58 BLR85] that the relevant provision of the amending Actwould apply to all proceedings where the period ofnotice had expired after the amending Act had comeinto force and that the effect of the amending Act 19 was no more than this that it imposed a new and additional limitation on the right of the landlord to obtain possession from his tenant. It was observed in that judgment that "a notice under Section 34(1) is merely a declaration to the tenant of the intention of the landlord to terminate the tenancy; but it is always open to the landlord not to carry out his intention. Therefore, for the application of the restriction under sub-section 2(a) on the right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy, the crucial date is not the date of notice but the date on which the right to terminate matures; that is the date on which the tenancy stands terminated".15. Similar is the case on facts here. A vested right wouldarise only if any of the appellants before us had actually beenappointed to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professors. Till thatdate, there is no vested right in any of the appellants. At thehighest, the appellants could only contend that they have a rightto be considered for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor.This right is always subject to minimum eligibility conditions,and till such time as the appellants are appointed, differentconditions may be laid down at different times. Merely becausean additional eligibility condition in the form of a NET test is laiddown, it does not mean that any vested right of the appellants isaffected, nor does it mean that the regulation laying down such 20

minimum eligibility condition would be retrospective inoperation. Such condition would only be prospective as itwould apply only at the stage of appointment. It is clear,therefore, that the contentions of the private appellants beforeus must fail.16. One of the learned counsel for the petitioners argued,based on the language of the direction of the CentralGovernment dated 12th November, 2008 that all that theGovernment wanted the UGC to do was to "generally" prescribeNET as a qualification. But this did not mean that UGC had toprescribe this qualification without providing for any exemption.We are unable to accede to this argument for the simple reasonthat the word "generally" precedes the word "compulsory" and itis clear that the language of the direction has been followedboth in letter and in spirit by the UGC regulations of 2009 and2010.17. The arguments based on Article 14 equally have to berejected. It is clear that the object of the directions of theCentral Government read with the UGC regulations of2009/2010 are to maintain excellence in standards of higher 21education. Keeping this object in mind, a minimum eligibilitycondition of passing the national eligibility test is laid down.True, there may have been exemptions laid down by the UGCin the past, but the Central Government now as a matter ofpolicy feels that any exemption would compromise theexcellence of teaching standards in Universities/Colleges/Institutions governed by the UGC. Obviously, there is nothingarbitrary or discriminatory in this - in fact it is a core function ofthe UGC to see that such standards do not get diluted.18. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has been dealt within two judgments of this Court as follows:In Union of India v. International Trading Company (2003) 5SCC 437, it was held:

"23. Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. In determining whether there is any unfairness involved; the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, 22 the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing condition at the relevant time, enter into judicial verdict. The reasonableness of the legitimate expectation has to be determined with respect to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question. Canalisation of a particular business in favour of even a specified individual is reasonable where the interests of the country are concerned or where the business affects the economy of the country. (See Parbhani Transport Coop. Society Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority [AIR 1960 SC 801 : 62 Bom LR 521] , Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [(1974) 1 SCC 468 : AIR 1974 SC 366] , Hari Chand Sarda v. Mizo District Council [AIR 1967 SC 829] and Krishnan Kakkanth v. Govt. of Kerala [(1997) 9 SCC 495 : AIR 1997 SC 128]."19. Similarly, in Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA (2009) 1SCC 180, it was held:- "33. It is well settled that the concept of legitimate expectation has no role to play where the State action is as a public policy or in the public interest unless the action taken amounts to an abuse of power. The court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority which is empowered to take the decisions under law and the court is expected to apply an objective standard which leaves to the deciding authority the full range of choice which the legislature is presumed to have intended. Even in a case where the decision is left entirely to the discretion of the deciding authority without any such legal bounds and if the decision is taken fairly and objectively, the court will not interfere on the ground of procedural fairness to a person whose interest based on legitimate expectation might be affected. 23 Therefore, a legitimate expectation can at the most be one of the grounds which may give rise to judicial review but the granting of relief is very much limited.(Vide Hindustan Development Corpn. [(1993) 3 SCC 499]"20. In University Grants Commission v. SadhanaChaudhary (1996) 10 SCC, 536, it is true that in paragraph 22,some of the very appellants before us are referred to as having

a legitimate expectation in the matter of appointment to the postof Lecturer in Universities/Colleges, but that case would haveno direct application here. There a challenge was made toexemptions granted at that time to Ph.D. holders and M. Phil.degree holders. It was found that such exemption had arational relation to the object sought to be achieved at that pointof time, being based on an intelligible differentia. An Article 14challenge to the said exemption was, therefore, repelled. Evenassuming that the said judgment would continue to apply evenafter the 2009 Regulations, a legitimate expectation mustalways yield to the larger public interest. The larger publicinterest in the present case is nothing less than having highlyqualified Assistant Professors to teach in UGC Institutions. 24Even if, therefore, the private appellants before us had alegitimate expectation that given the fact that the UGC grantedthem an exemption from the NET and continued to state thatsuch exemption should continue to be granted even after theGovernment direction of 12th November, 2008 would have toyield to the larger public interest of selection of the mostmeritorious among candidates to teach in Institutions governedby the UGC Act.21. The Allahabad High Court in its judgment dated 6 th April,2012 has held as follows: "104. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 20 (1) of UGC Act, 1956, does not possess powers and authority to set aside or annul the recommendations of the University Grants Commission, and the regulations made by it under Section 26 (1) (e) of the Act defining the qualification, that should ordinarily be required to be possessed by any person to be appointed to the teaching posts of the University, for which under Section 26 (2) of the UGC Act, 1956, the previous approval of the Central Government is not required. 2. The exemptions given by UGC to those, who were awarded Ph.D degrees prior to 31.12.2009 before the enforcement of the Regulations of 2009, is not a question of policy relating to national 25

purpose on which the Central Government couldhave issued directions under Section 20 (1) of theUGC Act, 1956.3. The UGC is an expert body constituted withspecialists in laying down standards and forpromotion and coordination of University education.The recommendations made by it in the matters ofqualifications and the limited exemptions of suchqualifications for appointment for teachers inUniversities taken after constituting expertCommittees and considering their recommendationsis not subject to supervision and control by theCentral Government. The Central Government inthe matters of laying down minimum qualificationsfor appointment of teachers in the University, doesnot possess any supervisory powers, to annul theresolutions of UGC.4. The Ph.D holders, who were awarded Ph.Ddegrees prior to 31.12.2009, cannot be said to havelegitimate expectation maturing into any right to beconsidered for appointment on teaching posts in theUniversity, without obtaining the NET/SLET/SETqualifications, unless the UGC has provided for anyexemptions.5. The resolution on agenda item no. 6.04 and 6.05in the 468th meeting of the UGC held on 23.2.2010,and the resolution of UGC in its 471st meeting onagenda item no. 2.08 dated 12.8.2010recommending the 3rd Amendments to theRegulations of 2009 to be prospective in nature, isbinding on the Universities including the Universityof Allahabad.6. The petitioners were awarded Ph.D degrees inthe year 2009 and in the year 2003 respectivelyprior to enforcement of the 3rd Amendment in theregulations, which came into force on 31.12.2009,and thus they are eligible, even if they are not 26 NET/SLET/SET qualified, if they have been awarded Ph.D degree with any six conditions out of 11 recommended by the UGC prior to 31.12.2009. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioners are held eligible for consideration for appointment as Lecturer for guest faculty in the Department of Sanskrit of the University, provided they satisfy any of the six tests out of eleven, laid down by the UGC, and which are made essential for award of Ph.D degree under the 3rd Amendment of the Regulations of 2009. It will be open to the University to consider from the material produced by the petitioners, that they satisfy six out of eleven tests recommended by the University Grants Commission for award of their Ph.D."22. We have already pointed out how the directions of theCentral Government under Section 20 of the UGC Act pertain toquestions of policy relating to national purpose. We have alsopointed out that the regulation making power is subservient todirections issued under Section 20 of the Act. The fact that theUGC is an expert body does not take the matter any further.The UGC Act contemplates that such expert body will have to

act in accordance with directions issued by the CentralGovernment. 2723. The Allahabad High Court adverted to an expertcommittee under the Chairmanship of Professor S.P.Thyagarajan which laid down that if six out of eleven criteria laiddown by the Committee was satisfied when such Universitygranted a Ph.D. degree, then such Ph.D. degree should besufficient to qualify such person for appointment asLecturer/Assistant Professor without the further qualification ofhaving to pass the NET test. The UGC itself does not appear tohave given effect to this recommendation of the ThyagarajanCommittee. However, the High Court thought it fit to give effectto this Committee's recommendation in the final directionsissued by it. When the UGC itself has not accepted therecommendations of the said Committee, we do not understandhow the High Court sought to give effect to suchrecommendations. We, therefore, set aside the Allahabad HighCourt judgment dated 6th April, 2012 in its entirety.24. In SLP (C) NO.3054-3055/2014, a judgment of the sameHigh Court dated 6th January, 2014 again by a Division Bencharrived at the opposite conclusion. This is also a matter whichcauses us some distress. A Division Bench judgment of the 28same High Court is binding on a subsequent Division Bench.The subsequent Division Bench can either follow it or refer suchjudgment to the Chief Justice to constitute a Full Bench if itdiffers with it. We do not appreciate the manner in which thissubsequent judgment, (even though it has reached the rightresult) has dealt with an earlier binding Division Benchjudgment of the same High Court. In fact, as was pointed out tous by learned counsel for the appellants, the distinction made inparagraph 20 between the facts of the earlier judgment and the

facts in the later judgment is not a distinction at all. Just as inthe 2012 judgment Ph.D. degrees had been awarded prior to2009, even in the 2014 judgment Ph.D. degrees with which thatjudgment was concerned were also granted prior to 2009.There is, therefore, no distinction between the facts of the twocases. What is even more distressing is that only sub para 4 ofthe conclusion in the 2012 judgment is set out without any ofthe other sub paragraphs of Paragraph 104 extracted above toarrive at a result which is the exact opposite of the earlierjudgment. This judgment is also set aside only for the reasonthat it did not follow an earlier binding judgment. This will, 29however, not impact the fact that the writ petitions in the 2014judgment have been dismissed. They stand dismissed havingregard to the reasoning in the judgment delivered by us today.In view of this pronouncement, nothing survives in ContemptPetition Nos. 286-287 of 2014 which are disposed of as havingbecome infructuous. The other appeals from the Delhi, Madrasand Rajasthan High Courts are, consequently, also dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs. .........................J. (T.S. Thakur) .........................J. (R.F. Nariman)New Delhi;March 16, 2015. 30 (REVISED)ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.13 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCivil Appeal No. 2891-2900/2015(@ SLP (C) Nos.36023-36032/2010)P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNIV.GRANTS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)WITH

Civil Appeal No.2901/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 10247/2011Civil Appeal No. 2902/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 14985/2011Civil Appeal No. 2903/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 34196/2012Civil Appeal No.2904-2906/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 36362-36364/2012Civil Appeal No.2907-2908/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 38991-38992/2012Civil Appeal No. 2909/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 1529/2013Civil Appeal No. 2910/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 1817/2013Civil Appeal No.2911/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 4619/2013Civil Appeal No. 2912/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 4925/2013Civil Appeal No.2913/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 17939/2013CONMT.PET.(C) No. 286-287/2014 In SLP(C) No. 3054-3055/2014Civil Appeal No. 2914-2915/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 3054-3055/2014Civil Appeal No.2916/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 3753/2014Date : 16/03/2015 These appeals and petition were called on forpronouncement of judgment today.For Parties Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar,Adv. 31 Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,Adv. Ms. Arti Gupta,Adv. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia,Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv. Mr. Ravinder Agarwal,Adv. Mr. G. S. Mani, Adv. Mr. Jitenu Chauhan, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash,Adv. Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shamshery, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Surya Kant,Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. Mr. T. V. George,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. F. Nariman pronounced the reportablejudgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. S. Thakurand His Lordship. Leave granted. The impleadment applications are allowed. Allahabad High Court judgment dated 6th April, 2012 is setaside and in Civil Appeal No. 2914-2915/2015 @ SLP (C)Nos.3054-3055/2014, judgment of the same High Court dated 6thJanuary, 2014 is also set aside, Contempt Petition Nos. 286-287of 2014 are disposed of as having become infructuous in terms ofthe signed reportable judgment. The other appeals from the Delhi,Madras and Rajasthan High Courts are dismissed in terms of signedreportable judgment. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Suman Jain) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.] 32ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.13 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCivil Appeal No. 2891-2900/2015(@ SLP (C) Nos.36023-36032/2010)P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNIV.GRANTS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)WITHCivil Appeal No.2901/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 10247/2011Civil Appeal No. 2902/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 14985/2011Civil Appeal No. 2903/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 34196/2012Civil Appeal No.2904-2906/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 36362-36364/2012Civil Appeal No.2907-2908/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 38991-38992/2012Civil Appeal No. 2909/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 1529/2013Civil Appeal No. 2910/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 1817/2013Civil Appeal No.2911/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 4619/2013Civil Appeal No. 2912/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 4925/2013Civil Appeal No.2913/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 17939/2013CONMT.PET.(C) No. 286-287/2014 In SLP(C) No. 3054-3055/2014Civil Appeal No. 2914-2915/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 3054-3055/2014Civil Appeal No.2916/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 3753/2014Date : 16/03/2015 These appeals and petition were called on forpronouncement of judgment today.For Parties Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv. 33 Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,Adv.

Ms. Arti Gupta,Adv. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia,Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv. Mr. Ravinder Agarwal,Adv. Mr. G. S. Mani, Adv. Mr. Jitenu Chauhan, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash,Adv. Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shamshery, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Surya Kant,Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. Mr. T. V. George,Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. F. Nariman pronounced the reportablejudgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. S. Thakurand His Lordship. Leave granted. Allahabad High Court judgment dated 6th April, 2012 is setaside and in Civil Appeal No. 2914-2915/2015 @ SLP (C)Nos.3054-3055/2014, judgment of the same High Court dated 6thJanuary, 2014 is also set aside, Contempt Petition Nos. 286-287of 2014 are disposed of as having become infructuous in terms ofthe signed reportable judgment. The other appeals from the Delhi,Madras and Rajasthan High Courts are dismissed in terms of signedreportable judgment. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Suman Jain) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.] 34

1 ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.2 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36023-36032/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/12/2010 in WA No. 893/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 894/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 900/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 901/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 902/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 942/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 943/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 944/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 945/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 9483/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 893/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 894/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 900/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 901/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 902/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 942/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 943/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 944/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 945/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 9483/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 893/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 894/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 900/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 901/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 902/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 942/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 943/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 944/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 945/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 9483/2010 passed by the High Court Of Madras) P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNIV.GRNATS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for impleadment and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 10247/2011 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 14985/2011 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 34196/2012 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 36362-36364/2012 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record

2 and appln.(s) for impleadment as petitioner and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 38991-38992/2012 (With appln.(s) for impleadment and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 1529/2013 (With appln.(s) for permission to bring additional facts and documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 1817/2013 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 4619/2013 (With appln.(s) for permission to bring additional facts and documents on record and appln.(s) for pleading addl. facts & taking on record additional documents and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 4925/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 17939/2013 (With Office Report) CONMT.PET.(C) No. 286-287/2014 In SLP(C) No. 3054-3055/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 3054-3055/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 3753/2014 (With Office Report) Date : 24/02/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. Nalini Chidambaram, Sr. Adv. Ms. Esha Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. Mr. V.Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. Ms. Jyoti Prashar, Adv.

3 Mr. Amit Kumar,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,Adv. MS. Madhurima Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Neha Meena, Adv. Mr. Amit Verma, Adv. Mr. Hemendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. T.Gopal, Adv. Mr. Pawan Saini, Adv. Mr. Anshuman, adv. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Arti Gupta,Adv. Mr. Ankit Mishra, Adv. Mr. Maruf Khan, Adv. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia,Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Ms. Menka Guruswamy, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vivek Paul Oriel, Adv. Mr. B.V.Balram Das, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. G.S.Mani, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish,Adv. Mr. M.P.Parthnan, Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman,Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash,Adv. Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. Mr. S.S.Shaamshery, Adv.

4 Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kohli, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv. Mr. Surya Kant,Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Hamid Khan, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. Mr. T. V. George,Adv. Mr. Rakesh Taneja, Adv. Mr. Satya Lipsu Ray, Adv. Mr. Mohinder Jit Singh Rupal, Adv. Ms. Yamni Phyang, Adv. MS. Pragati Neekhra, Adv. Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Adv. Mr. Nitin Kumar Thakur, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Arguments heard. Judgment reserved. Written submissions, if any, be filed by learned counsel for the parties within one week. (Shashi Sareen) Court Master (Veena Khera) Court Master

Ò0 1 ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.2 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36023-36032/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/12/2010 in WA No. 893/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 894/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 900/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 901/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 902/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 942/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 943/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 944/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 945/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 9483/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 893/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 894/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 900/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 901/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 902/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 942/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 943/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 944/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 945/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 9483/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 893/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 894/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 900/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 901/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 902/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 942/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 943/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 944/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 945/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 9483/2010 passed by the High Court Of Madras) P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNIV.GRNATS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for impleadment and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 10247/2011 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 14985/2011 (With Interim Relief and Office Report)Signature Not Verified SLP(C) No. 34196/2012Digitally signed by (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on recordShashi SareenDate: 2015.02.2410:37:21 IST and Office Report)Reason: SLP(C) No. 36362-36364/2012 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record 2and appln.(s) for impleadment as petitioner and Interim Relief andOffice Report) SLP(C) No. 38991-38992/2012(With appln.(s) for impleadment and Interim Relief and Office

Report) SLP(C) No. 1529/2013(With appln.(s) for permission to bring additional facts anddocuments on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 1817/2013(With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on recordand Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 4619/2013(With appln.(s) for permission to bring additional facts anddocuments on record and appln.(s) for pleading addl. facts &taking on record additional documents and Interim Relief andOffice Report) SLP(C) No. 4925/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 17939/2013(With Office Report) CONMT.PET.(C) No. 286-287/2014 In SLP(C) No. 3054-3055/2014(With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 3054-3055/2014(With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 3753/2014(With Office Report)Date : 24/02/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMANFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Nalini Chidambaram, Sr. Adv. Ms. Esha Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. Mr. V.Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. Ms. Jyoti Prashar, Adv. 3 Mr. Amit Kumar,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,Adv. MS. Madhurima Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Neha Meena, Adv. Mr. Amit Verma, Adv. Mr. Hemendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. T.Gopal, Adv. Mr. Pawan Saini, Adv. Mr. Anshuman, adv. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Arti Gupta,Adv. Mr. Ankit Mishra, Adv. Mr. Maruf Khan, Adv. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia,Adv.

Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Ms. Menka Guruswamy, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vivek Paul Oriel, Adv. Mr. B.V.Balram Das, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. G.S.Mani, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish,Adv. Mr. M.P.Parthnan, Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman,Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash,Adv. Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. Mr. S.S.Shaamshery, Adv. 4 Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kohli, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv. Mr. Surya Kant,Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Hamid Khan, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. Mr. T. V. George,Adv. Mr. Rakesh Taneja, Adv. Mr. Satya Lipsu Ray, Adv. Mr. Mohinder Jit Singh Rupal, Adv. Ms. Yamni Phyang, Adv. MS. Pragati Neekhra, Adv. Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Adv. Mr. Nitin Kumar Thakur, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Arguments heard. Judgment reserved. Written submissions, if any, be filed bylearned counsel for the parties within one week. (Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) Court Master Court Master

1 ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.2 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36023-36032/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/12/2010 in WA No. 893/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 894/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 900/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 901/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 902/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 942/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 943/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 944/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 945/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 9483/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 893/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 894/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 900/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 901/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 902/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 942/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 943/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 944/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 945/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 9483/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 893/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 894/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 900/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 901/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 902/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 942/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 943/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 944/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 945/2010,06/12/2010 in WA No. 9483/2010 passed by the High Court Of Madras) P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNIV.GRNATS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for impleadment and interim relief and office report) (For Final Disposal) WITH SLP(C) No. 10247/2011 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 14985/2011 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 34196/2012 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 36362-36364/2012 (With appln.(s) for impleadment as petitioner and appln.(s) for

2 permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 38991-38992/2012 (With appln.(s) for impleadment and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 1529/2013 (With appln.(s) for permission to bring additional facts and documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 1817/2013 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 4619/2013 (With appln.(s) for permission to bring additional facts and documents on record and appln.(s) for pleading addl. facts & taking on record additional documents and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 4925/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 17939/2013 (With Office Report) CONMT.PET.(C) No. 286-287/2014 In SLP(C) No. 3054-3055/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 3054-3055/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 3753/2014 (With Office Report) Date : 03/02/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Petitioner(s) MS. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv. Mr.Apoorv Bhumesh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. Mr. V.Prabhakar, Adv.

3 Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. MS. Jyoti Prashar, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,Adv. Ms. Arti Gupta,Adv. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia,Adv. MS. Pinky Anand, ASG, MS. Maneka Guruswamy, Adv. Mr. Prabal Bagchi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv. Mr. A.K.Srivastava, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ravinder Agarwal,Adv. Dr. Shailendra Sharma, Aadv. Mr. G.S.Mani, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish,Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman,Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel, adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. Mr. Jayant Bhat, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv. Mr. Surya Kant,Adv. Mr. Jayan Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. Mr. T. V. George,Adv. Mr. Sargalipsu Ray, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Tanuja, Adv. Mr. Manoj R.Sinha, adv. Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv. Mr. T.Mahipal, Adv.

4 MS. Pragati Neekhra, Adv. Mr. Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Adv. Mr. Y.Phazang, Adv. Mr. Nitin Kuamr Thakur, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Post these matters on 24.02.2015 before a Bench of which Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel is not a member. (Shashi Sareen) Court Master (Veena Khera) Court Master

ITEM NO.24 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4925/2013 JITENDRA SINGH BIDAWAT Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 19/01/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anuj Bhandari,Adv. Ms. Arti Gupta,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Priyanka,Adv. Mr. Surya Kant,Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R File not received. List again on 26.3.2015. (M K HANJURA) Registrar MG

Ì ITEM NO.24 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4925/2013 JITENDRA SINGH BIDAWAT Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 19/01/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anuj Bhandari,Adv. Ms. Arti Gupta,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Priyanka,Adv. Mr. Surya Kant,Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R File not received. List again on 26.3.2015. (M K HANJURA) Registrar MGSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byMadhu GroverDate: 2015.01.2016:00:26 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.801 COURT NO.2 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).3054-3055/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/01/2014 in CMWP No. 66273/2013,06/01/2014 in CMWP No. 70882/2013 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad) VINAY SINGH & ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS U.O.I & ORS Respondent(s) Date: 13/01/2015 These petitions were mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. T.V. George,Adv. (mentioned by) Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R Post on 3.2.2015. (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER NOTE : Next date of listing of Main matter (SLP(C) Nos.36023-36032 of 2010) with which these SLPs are tagged is on 3.2.2015.

\ ITEM NO.801 COURT NO.2 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).3054-3055/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/01/2014 in CMWP No. 66273/2013,06/01/2014 in CMWP No. 70882/2013 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad) VINAY SINGH & ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS U.O.I & ORS Respondent(s) Date: 13/01/2015 These petitions were mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. T.V. George,Adv. (mentioned by) Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R Post on 3.2.2015. (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER NOTE: Next date of listing of Main matter (SLP(C) Nos.36023-36032 of 2010) with which these SLPs are tagged is on 3.2.2015.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byMahabir SinghDate: 2015.01.1316:39:54 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.48 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4925/2013 JITENDRA SINGH BIDAWAT Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 05/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.S.S.Shamshery,adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Await the return of the service of notice already issued to the respondent No.2. List again on 19.01.2015. (M K HANJURA) Registrar SB

¸ ITEM NO.100 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4925/2013 JITENDRA SINGH BIDAWAT Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s) (With interim relief and office report) Date : 20/08/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania ,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. S.S. Shamshery,Adv. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Singh,Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli ,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Respondent No.1 has already filed the counter affidavit as gets revealed from the perusal of the office report. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall take fresh steps for the service of notice to the respondent No. 2 within a period of two weeks. List again on 5.11.2014. (M K HANJURA) RegistrarSignature Not Verified MGDigitally signed byMadhu GroverDate: 2014.08.2115:24:13 ISTReason:

\202ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.5 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 286-287 OF 2014 IN SLP(C) 3054-3055/2014VINAY SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSU.O.I.& ORS. Respondent(s)(With Office Report)With I.A No(s).1-2 in SLP(C) No.3054-3055 of 2014(For Modification/clarification of Court's order dated 03.02.2014and office report)Date: 07/05/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. T.V. George,Adv.(Applicant) Mr. Maurya Sarkar,Adv. Mr. Rakesh Taneja,Adv. Mr. Amitesh Kumar,Adv. Ms. Priti Kumari,ADv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Mr. T.V. George, learned counsel appearing forrespondent no.3-University, submits that the petitionersare also being considered for appointment as AssistantProfessors strictly in accordance with the directionsissued by this Court vide Order dated 03rd February, 2014.That submission is recorded. Post the contempt petitions and interlocutoryapplications along with the main matter, immediately afterensuing summer vacation. (Mahabir Singh) (Saroj Saini) Court Master Court Master

tITEM NO.MM-2 Court No.5 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A. Nos. 1-2 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)No(s).3054-3055/2014(From the judgement and order dated 06/01/2014 in CMWPNo.66273/2013,CMWP No.70882/2013 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATALLAHABAD)VINAY SINGH & ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSU.O.I & ORS Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for modification/clarification and office report ))Date: 05/05/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr.T.V.George,Adv. (mentioned by) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Post these I.As on 07.05.2014. (Shashi Sareen) (Sunet Mahajan) Court Master Court Master

fITEM NO.MM-1 COURT NO.5 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 286-287 OF 2014 IN SLP(C)No.3054-3055/2014VINAY SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSU.O.I.& ORS. Respondent(s)Date: 02/05/2014 These Petitions were mentioned today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv.(mentioned by)For Respondent(s) UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R Post on Wednesday, the 7th May, 2014. (Mahabir Singh) (Saroj Saini) Court Master Court Master

 SECTION XI LISTED ON: 01.04.2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Court No. 6 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Item No. 11 PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL(CIVIL) NO. 3753 & 3054-3055 OF 2014 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS DR. RAMESH KUMAR YADAV ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matters above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 03.02.2014, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Delay condoned. Issue notice in the special leave petitions as well as on the prayer for interim relief. Tag with SLP(C) Nos. 36023-36032 of 2010 and connected matters. The operation of the impugned judgment and order shall remain stayed subject to the condition that such of the candidates as do not possess NET degree may also be considered but result of such consideration be kept in a sealed cover to be produced in this Court as and when directed.� SLP (c) No. 3753 of 2014 Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to both the Respondents on 19.02.2014. Neither A.D. Card nor unserved cover have been received back so far. Service of show cause notice is awaited in respect of both the Respondents. SLP (c) Nos. 3054-3055 of 2014 Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to all the 6 Respondents on 19.02.2014. Neither A.D. Card nor unserved covers have been received back so far. The Application for modification/clarification of Court's order was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 21.02.2014, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Petitioner to remove the office objections and take dasti summons for service of the respondents.� It is submitted that Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Affidavit of Dasti service alongwith proof in respect of Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 (all). Cont. 2/- --2/- Mr. T. V. George, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama and Memo of Appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 3 alongwith Counter Affidavit. He has also filed reply to Interlocutory Application Nos. 1 & 2 and copies of the same are being circulated herewith. Since the matters are tagged with SLP (c) Nos. 36023-36032 of 2010, the same are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 31st day of March, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate Mr. T. V. George, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR GA

äITEM NO.54 COURT NO.14 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).1817/2013(From the judgement and order dated 13/09/2012 in DBCWP No.12343/2011 ofThe HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)DINESH KUMAR SIRADHANA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and prayerfor interim relief and office report ))WITH SLP(C) NO. 17939 of 2013(With office report)Date: 10/03/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Anuhj Bhandari, Adv. for Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,AOR Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, AORFor Respondent(s) Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Shrey, Adv. Mr. Akshat, Adv. for Mr. Milind Kumar,AOR UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the rival parties invited our attention to the fact that a number of petitions arising out of a common order are pending consideration before this Court and need to be tagged together. In view of the above, tag all petitions arising out of the common order and list for hearing after four weeks. |(Parveen Kr.Chawla) | |(Phoolan Wati Arora) ||Court Master | |Assistant Registrar || | | |

\230ITEM NO.MM-2 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).36023-36032/2010(From the judgement and order dated 06/12/2010 in WA No.893/2010,WA No.894/2010,WA No.900/2010,WA No.901/2010,WA No.902/2010,WANo.942/2010,WA No.943/2010,WA No.944/2010,WA No.945/2010,WA No.9483/2010 ofThe HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNIV.GRNATS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for impleadment and prayer for interim relief andoffice report)Date: 10/03/2014 These Petitions were MENTIONED today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOIFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Nalini Chidambaram, Sr. Adv. (Mentioned by) Mr. Vikas Mehta, AORFor Respondent(s) Mr. Navin Prakash, AOR UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R List this matter on any Tuesday in the month of April, 2014, before the appropriate Bench.|(Chetan Kumar) | |(Savita Sainani) ||Court Master | |Assistant Registrar |

ITEM NO.50 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A. Nos. 1-2 inPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).3054-3055/2014(From the judgement and order dated 06/01/2014 in CMWP No.66273/2013,CMWPNo.70882/2013 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)VINAY SINGH & ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSU.O.I & ORS Respondent(s)(For modification/clarification of Court's order dated 03.02.2014 andoffice report)Date: 21/02/2014 These applications were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Petitioner to remove the office objections and take dasti summons for service of the respondents. [Nidhi Ahuja] [Veena Khera] Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.MM-1 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A.No.....of 2014 inPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).3054-3055/2014(From the judgement and order dated 06/01/2014 in CMWP No.66273/2013,CMWPNo.70882/2013 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)VINAY SINGH & ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSU.O.I & ORS Respondent(s)(Application for Clarification/Modification of order dated 03.02.2014)Date: 17/02/2014 This matter was mentioned today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv.(mentioned by)For Respondent(s) UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R Post Application for Clarification/modification of order dated03.02.2014 on Friday, the 21st February, 2014.|(Mahabir Singh) | (Veena Khera) || Court Master | Court Master |

ÈITEM NO.52 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2014 CC 970/2014(From the judgement and order dated 06/04/2012 in CMWP No.45477/2011, ofThe HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSRAMESH KUMAR YADAV & ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in refiling SLP,c/delay in filing SLP and officereport)WITH SLP(C) NO. 3054-3055 of 2014(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 03/02/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. R.K. Khanna,ASG Ms. Yogmaya Agrihotri,Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv. Ms. B.Sunita Rao, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice in the special leave petitions as well as on the prayer for interim relief. Tag with SLP(C) Nos. 36023-36032 of 2010 and connected matters. The operation of the impugned judgment and order shall remain stayed subject to the condition that such of the candidates as do not possess NET degree may also be considered but result of such consideration be kept in a sealed cover to be produced in this Court as and when directed.|(Shashi Sareen) | (Veena Khera) || Court Master | Court Master |

ªITEM NOS.16 & 61 COURT NO.10 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2014 CC 970/2014(From the judgement and order dated 06/04/2012 in CMWP No.45477/2011 ofthe HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSRAMESH KUMAR YADAV & ANR. Respondent(s)(With I.A. No.1 for c/delay in filing SLP, c/delay in refiling SLP andoffice report) WITHSLP(C) NO. 3054-3055 of 2014(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date:31/01/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. R.K. Khanna,ASG Ms. Yogmaya Agnihotri,Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Place these matters before a Bench of which one of us (Justice Dipak Misra) is not a member. Registry is directed to list these matters on 3rd February, 2014. (A.S. BISHT) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) A.R.-CUM-P.S. COURT MASTER

\210ITEM NO.MM-10 COURT NO.1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).3054-3055/2014(From the judgement and order dated 06/01/2014 in CMWP No.66273/2013,CMWPNo.70882/2013 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)VINAY SINGH & ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSU.O.I & ORS Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 30/01/2014 These Petitions were mentioned today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGHFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R List tomorrow i.e. 31st January, 2014 before an appropriate Bench. [ Madhu Bala ] [ Savita Sainani ] Court Master Assistant Registrar

fITEM NO.48 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.A. SAYEEDPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).1817/2013DINESH KUMAR SIRADHANA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and prayerfor interim relief and office report )Date: 23/01/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr S.S.Shamshery, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Matter would fall under complete category. Registry to process the matter for listing before the Hon'ble Courtas per rules.| | |(M.A.SAYEED) || | |REGISTRAR |hj

lITEM NO.12 COURT NO.10 SECTION XII(mentd.) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.36023-36032/2010(From the judgement and order dated 06/12/2010 in WA No.893/2010,WANo.894/2010,WA No.900/2010,WA No.901/2010,WA No.902/2010,WA No.942/2010,WANo.943/2010,WA No.944/2010,WA No.945/2010,WA No.9483/2010 of The HIGH COURTOF MADRAS)P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNIV.GRNATS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for impleadment and prayer for interim relief and officereport ))(for final disposal)WITHSLP(C) NO. 10247 of 2011(With office report)(for final disposal)SLP(C) NO. 14985 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)(for final disposal)SLP(C) NO. 34196 of 2012(With office report)(for final disposal)SLP(C) NO. 36362-36364 of 2012(With prayer for interim relief and office report)(for final disposal)SLP(C) NO. 38991-38992 of 2012(With prayer for interim relief and office report)(for final disposal)SLP(C) NO. 4619 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)(for final disposal)SLP(C) NO. 1529 of 2013(With appln.(s)for permission to bring addl.facts and documents on recordand with prayer for interim relief and office report)(for final disposal)SLP(C) NO. 4925 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)(for final disposal)Date: 26/11/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikas Mehta,AOR. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. V.Prabhkar, Adv. Mr. R.Chandrachud, AOR

Ms. Jyoti Prashar, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AOR Mr. A.Sharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, AOR Mr. Ankit Rajgarbhia, Adv.For Respondent(s)Delhi University Mr. Mohnish Uppal, Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash,AOR. Mr. Subramonium Prasad ,AOR Mr. G.S. Mani, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish ,AOR Mr. S. Gowthaman ,AOR Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kr. Yadav, Adv. Mr Ankit Gosl, Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG.Raj. Mr. Amit Lubhaya, Adv. Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mr. Navin Prakash, Adv.UGC Mr Amaitesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Surya Kant, AOR Mr. Mohinder Jit Singh, AOR UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 10.12.2013. [ Sheetal Dhingra ] [ Sneh Lata Sharma ] A.R-cum-P.S. Court Master

tITEM NO.53 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.A. SAYEEDPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).1817/2013DINESH KUMAR SIRADHANA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and prayerfor interim relief and office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 17939 of 2013(With office report)Date: 21/11/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr Pushpinder Singh, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Mr Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C) NO.1817/2013 Dasti in respect of respondent No.2 is awaited. Right of respondent No.1 to file counter affidavit has been alreadyexhausted. List again on 12.12.2013.SLP(C) NO.17939/2013 Matter falls under complete category. However, further necessaryorders would be passed as and when other connected matter would becomeready.| | |(M.A.SAYEED) || | |REGISTRAR |hj

\202ITEM NO.61 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).4925/2013JITENDRA SINGH BIDAWAT Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 25/10/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Pragati Neekhra,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R File not received. List the matter on 4.12.2013.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB

\ITEM NO.66 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.A. SAYEEDPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).1817/2013DINESH KUMAR SIRADHANA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and prayerfor interim relief and office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 17939 of 2013(With office report)Date: 04/10/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C) NO.1817/2013 Respondent No.1 has failed to file counter affidavit despite finalchance granted on the last date. Notice be re issued to respondent no.2 through dasti as prayed.Necessary steps as per rules be taken.SLP(C) NO.17939/2013 Matter falls under complete category. However, further necessaryorders would be passed as and when other connected matter would becomeready. List again on 21.11.2013.| | |(M.A.SAYEED) || | |REGISTRAR |hj

æITEM NO.74 COURT NO.11 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. Nos.3-4 inPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).34196/2012(From the judgement and order dated 12/10/2012 in DBCWP No.16718/2012 ofthe HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA Petitioner(s) VERSUSU.O.I. & ORS. Respondent(s)(For directions and impleadment and office report)Date: 09/09/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv.For Respondent(s) Dr. Manish Singhvi,AAG,Raj. Mr. Amit Lubhaya,Adv. Ms. Pragati Neekhra,Adv. Mr. Govind Goel,Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kr. Yadav,Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R We are not inclined to entertain I.A. Nos.3 & 4 which are dismissed accordingly. (A.S. BISHT) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

¸ITEM NO.MM-5 COURT NO.1 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A.No..........Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).34196/2012(From the judgement and order dated 12/10/2012 in DBCWP No.16718/2012 ofThe HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA Petitioner(s) VERSUSU.O.I. & ORS. Respondent(s)(For impleadment and directions)Date: 06/09/2013 This Matter was mentioned today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv.For Respondent(s) Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv Ms. Pragati Neekhra,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List I.A. on 9th September, 2013 before an appropriate Bench. [Madhu Bala] [Savita Sainani] Sr.PA Court Master

RITEM NO.77 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.A. SAYEEDPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).1817/2013DINESH KUMAR SIRADHANA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents onrecord and prayer for interim relief and office report)WITH SLP(C) NO. 17939 of 2013(With office report)Date: 03/09/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv. Mr. Suprabh K. Roshan, Adv. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C) No.1817/2013 Respondent No.1 is granted three weeks' time, as a final chance, forfiling counter affidavit on record. Dasti report in respect of respondent No.2 is awaited.SLP(C) NO. 17939 of 2013 Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1 has already come onrecord.Item No.77 -2- The learned Advocate, Mr. Vivek Singh for respondent No.1 has made asubmission at Bar that he is appearing for respondent No.2 also and counteraffidavit has been already filed on record on behalf of both therespondents. The matter is complete in all respects. Further necessary orders to be passed as and when the other connectedmatters would become ready. List again on 4.10.2013.| | | (M.A. SAYEED) || | |REGISTRAR || | | |rd

ITEM NO.68 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).4925/2013JITENDRA SINGH BIDAWAT Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 08/08/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Pragati Neekhra,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Respondent No.1 has filed counter affidavit. Await respondent No.2. List the matter on 7.10.2013.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||mg | |Registrar |

\236ITEM NO.87 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.A. SAYEEDPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).1817/2013DINESH KUMAR SIRADHANA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents onrecord and prayer for interim relief and office report)WITH SLP(C) NO. 17939 of 2013(With office report)Date: 31/07/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C) No.1817/2013 Four weeks' time is granted to respondent No.1 for filing counteraffidavit on record. Dasti report in respect of respondent No.2 is awaited.SLP(C) NO. 17939 of 2013 Respondent No.1 has already filed counter affidavit on record.Item No.87 -2- Respondent No.2 is reported to be duly and properly served but noneappeared on his behalf. Further necessary orders to be passed as and when the other connectedmatters would become ready. List again on 3.9.2013.| | | (M.A. SAYEED) || | |REGISTRAR || | | |rd

ÌITEM NO.24 COURT NO.3 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 9764/2013(From the judgement and order dated 13/09/2012 in SBCWP No.14628/2011, ofThe HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)VIJAY SINGH MEENA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report ))Date: 07/05/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAIFor Petitioner(s) NoneFor Respondent(s) UPON perusing papers the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with S.L.P.(C) No. 1817 of 2013. |(Parveen Kr.Chawla) | |(Phoolan Wati Arora) ||Court Master | |Court Master || | | |

ITEM NO.109 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.A. SAYEEDPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).1817/2013DINESH KUMAR SIRADHANA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents onrecord and prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 06/05/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Respondent No.1 is duly served but no one has put appearance on hisbehalf. Dasti report in respect of respondent No.2 is awaited. List again on 19.7.2013.| | | (M.A. SAYEED) || | |REGISTRAR || | | |rd

ÄITEM NO.202 COURT NO.12 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.36023-36032/2010(From the judgement and order dated 06/12/2010 in WA No.893, 894, 900, 901,902, 942, 943, 944, 945 and 9483 of 2010 of the HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNIV.GRNATS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report)(FOR FINAL DISPOSAL) WITHSLP(C) NO. 10247 of 2011(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 14985 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 34196 of 2012(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and withprayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 36362-36364 of 2012(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and withprayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 38991-38992 of 2012(With appln(s) for impleadment and with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)SLP(C) NO. 4619 of 2013(With appln(s) for permission to bring additional facts and documents onrecord and with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)SLP(C) NO. 1529 of 2013(With appln(s) for permission to bring additional facts and documents onrecord and with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)SLP(C) NO. 4925 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date:18/04/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. S.K. Keshote,Sr.Adv. Mrs. Rashmi Singhania,Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.

Mr. Amit Kumar,Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,Adv. Mr. V. Prabhakar,Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. Ms. Jyoti Prashar,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Luthra,ASG Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv. Mr. A.K. Srivastava,Adv. Ms. C. Sarin,Adv. Ms. Supriya Juneja,Adv. Mr. Arjun Diwan,Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi,AAG,Raj. Mr. Amit Lubhaya,Adv. Ms. Pragati Neekhra,Adv. Mr. G.S. Mani,Adv. Mr. R. Sathish,Adv. Mr. Amitesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Ravi Kant,Adv. Mr. C.S. Singh,Adv. For Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash,Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman,Adv. Mr. Surya Kant,Adv. Mr. Govind Goel,Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar,Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel,Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey,Adv. Mr. Mohinder Jit Singh,Adv. Mr. Nitin Kumar Thakur,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these matter for final disposal on 14th August, 2013. Parties may file additional documents and complete the pleadings in the meantime. (A.S. BISHT) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

XITEM NO.90 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).4925/2013JITENDRA SINGH BIDAWAT Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 08/04/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Await return of notice of both the respondents. List the matter on 8.7.2013.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |

ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.13 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).4925/2013(From the judgement and order dated 13/09/2012 in DBCWP No.15625/2011 of The HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR)JITENDRA SINGH BIDAWAT Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. facts and documentson record, prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 11/03/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv. Ms. Rashmi Singhania,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Permission to place additional facts and documents on record is granted. Issue notice. Tag this petition with S.L.P. (C) No.34196 of 2012. [ Alka Dudeja ] [ Sneh Lata Sharma ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

^ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.3 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).1817/2013(From the judgement and order dated 13/09/2012 in DBCWP No.12343/2011 ofThe HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)DINESH KUMAR SIRADHANA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and withprayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 04/03/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Mr.S.K.Keshote, Sr.Adv. Mr.Shashank Pareek, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice, returnable in six weeks. Dasti, in addition, ispermitted. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master

¼ ITEM NO.204 COURT NO.9 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).36023-36032/2010(From the judgment and order 06/12/2010 in WA 893, 894, 900-902, 942-945 of2010 and WP 9483 of 2010 of the HIGH COUR TOF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS)P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNIV.GRNATS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report)WITHSLP(C) NO. 10247 of 2011[M. PRABHAKAR V. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.](With office report)SLP(C) NO. 14985 of 2011[ALL INDIA RESEARCHERS COORDIN COMMIT & ORS.](With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 34196 of 2012[MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA V. U.O.I. & ORS.](With application for permission to place additional documents on record,prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 36362-36364 of 2012[RAM KISHAN DUTT SHARMA & ORS. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.](With applicatin for permission to place additional documetns on record,prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 38991-38992 of 2012[LALIT SINGH JHALA & ORS. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.](With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 07/01/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s)in SLP 36023-32 Mr. Vikas Mehta, Adv.In SLP 10247 Mr. V. Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Prashar, Adv.In SLP 14985 Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.In SLP 34196 Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv.In SLP 36362-64 &38991-38992 Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Adv.

For Impleader (s) Mr. M.P. Parthiban, Adv.in SLP 36023-32 Mr. S. Gowthaman, Adv. Mr. M.P.S. Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Matrogupta Mishra, Adv. Ms. Sharmila Upadhaya, Adv.For Respondent(s)in SLP 36023-32 Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv.For RR 1 Mr. Ravi Kant, Adv. Mr. Chandrashekhar Singh, Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash, Adv.For RR No. 5 Mr. G.S. Mani, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, Adv.For RR No. 7 Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Adv.For RR 2 in SLP 10247 Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.IN SLP 14985For RR No. 2 Mr. Navin Prakash, Adv.For RR No. 1 Mr. Siddharth Luthra, ASG. Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv. Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sunil Roy, Adv. Ms. Supriya Juneja, Adv. Mr. Arjun Dewan, Adv.For RR No. 3 Mr. Mohinder Jit Singh Rupal, Adv.For RR No. 18 Mr. Nitin Kumar Thakur, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R| ||List these matters after three weeks ||Additional documents, if any, and replies may be filed in the meanwhile. ||In SLP(C) NO. 34196 of 2012, any appointments to the post of Assistant ||Professor (Jyothish) by respondent No. 4 shall be subject to the final ||orders that may be passed by this Court. ||Dasti service, in addition, is granted in SLP(C) Nos. 36362-36364 of 2012 ||and 38991-38992 of 2012. || ||[KALYANI GUPTA] | |[SHARDA KAPOOR] ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |

TITEM NO.41 COURT NO.9 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).36362-36364/2012(From the judgement and order dated 01/10/2012 in DBCWP No.6024/2011, DBCWP No.11506/2011 and dated 01/10/2012 in DBCWP No.7925/2011 of The HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR)RAM KRISHAN DUTT SHARMA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned Judgment,exemption from filing O.T., permission to place addl. documents on recordand prayer for interim relief and office report)WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 21880 of 2012(With permission to file SLP, prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 14/12/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Adv. Mr. Sanjoli Mittal, Adv. Dr. Prikhshayat Singh, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Permission to file SLP is granted in CC No. 21880/2012. Issue notice on the Special Leave Petitions as also on the prayer for interim relief. Tag with SLP(C) Nos. 36023-36032 of 2010.| (G. SUDHAKARA RAO) | | (INDU SATIJA) ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |

ÈITEM NO.MM(3) COURT NO.9 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).34196/2012(From the judgement and order dated 12/10/2012 in DBCWP No.16718/2012 of The HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA Petitioner(s) VERSUSU.O.I. & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and prayer for interim relief)Date: 03/12/2012 This Petition was MENTIONED today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON being mentioned by the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List in the second week of January, 2013.| (G. SUDHAKARA RAO) | | (SHARDA KAPOOR) ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER | [Stated to have noted for listing on 25-02-2013]

&ITEM NO.9A(MM) COURT NO.9 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).34196/2012(From the judgment and order dated 12/10/2012 in DBCWP No. 16718/2012 ofThe HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA Petitioner(s) VERSUSU.O.I. & ORS. Respondent(s)(With application for exemption from filing Official Translation,permission to place additional documents on record and prayer for interimrelief)Date: 06/11/2012 This Petition was called on for mentioning today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R| ||Taken on board. ||Application seeking exemption from filing official translation is allowed. ||Issue notice returnable within two weeks. ||Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. ||Tag with SLP(C) No. 14985/2011. ||Prayer for interim relief shall be considered after service of notice. || || ||[KALYANI GUPTA] | |[SHARDA KAPOOR] ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |

nITEM NO.92 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10247/2011M.PRABHAKAR Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondent(s)(With office report )Date: 09/05/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms. Jyoti Prashar,Adv. Mr. R.Chandrachud,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Ravi Kant,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ld. counsel for the petitioner in SLP(C)No.10247/2011 seek last opportunity for serving respondent No.1. Granted as a last chance. List the matter on 12.7.2012. (SUNIL THOMAS)s Registrar

| 1ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.7 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).36023-36032/2010 (From the judgement and order dated 06/12/2010 in WA No.893/2010, WA No.894/2010, WA No.900/2010, WA No.901/2010, WA No.902/2010, WA No.942/2010, WA No.943/2010, WA No.944/2010, WA No.945/2010 and WA No.9483/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNIV.GRNATS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )(FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)WITHSLP(C) NO. 10247 of 2011(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 14985 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 11/04/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. Mr. A. Sharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv. Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Shailandra K. Panday, Adv. Mr. V. Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. R.Chandrachud, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Prashar, Adv. 2For Respondent(s) Mr. R. Prabhakaran, Adv. Mr. G.S. Mani, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish ,Adv Mr. B. Balaji, Adv. Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad ,Adv Mr. M.P. Parithiban, Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman ,Adv Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Priti Kumari, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kant, Adv.

Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Priti Kumari, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kant, Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14985 of 2011 : According to Office Report dated 10th day of April, 2012, show cause notice could not be issued so far as the advocate on record for the petitioners has not filed the deficit process fee of Rs. 370/- along with 37 spare copies of SLP. In the interest of justice, we grant time of two weeks to the advocate on record for the petitioners to comply with Office Report dated 10th day of April, 2012, failing which Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14985 of 2011 shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. 3 Upon compliance, Office to issue notice. Dasti inaddition to the ordinary process.Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10247 of 2011 : Advocate on record for the petitioner is granted twoweeks time to take fresh steps to serve the unservedrespondent No. 1. List all the Special Leave Petitions after threemonths. (Rajesh Dham) (Renu Diwan) Court Master Court Master

l 1ITEM NO.58 COURT NO.10 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).36023-36032/2010(From the judgement and order dated 06/12/2010 in WA No. 893/2010 &WA No. 894/2010 & WA No. 900/2010 & WA No. 901/2010 & WA No. 902/2010& WA No. 942/2010 & WA No. 943/2010 & WA No. 944/2010 & WA No.945/2010 & WA No. 9483/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNIV.GRNATS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for impleadment and with prayer for interim reliefand office report)WITH SLP(C) NO. 10247 of 2011(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 14985 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 14/11/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Vivek Jain, Adv. Ms. Utkarsha Kohli, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv. Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Jawahar Lal, Adv. Mr. V. Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. R.Chandrachud, Adv. Ms. Hyoti Perashar, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kant, Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash,Adv. 2 Mr. G.S. Mani, Adv. Mr. V. Prabhakaran, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish ,Adv Mr. Subramonium Prasad ,Adv Mr. C. Paramasivam, Adv. Mr. M.P. Parthiban, Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman ,Adv Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kant, Ad. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.

Mr. T.S. Doabia, Sr. Adv. Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv. Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Adv. Mr. Sunil Roy, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocate, submits that he appears forrespondent No. 1-University Grants Commission and waivesservice of notice on University Grants Commission. Theservice on University Grants Commission-respondent iscomplete in all these matters. Interlocutory Applications Nos. 21 to 30 of 2011 -applications for impleadment - filed by Mr. S. Gowthaman,Advocate, are allowed in terms of prayer (a) thereof.Amended cause title shall be filed by the Advocate-on-Recordfor the petitioners within two weeks from today. Mr. Navin Prakash, Advocate, has circulated a letterin Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14985 of 2011 prayingfor time to enable filing of the counter affidavit. Twoweeks time is granted for filing the counter affidavit. List these matters for final disposal on anon-miscellaneous day in April 2012, i.e., on 11.04.2012. (Rajesh Dham) (Renu Diwan) Court Master Court Master

1ITEM NO.44 COURT NO.12 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).36023-36032/2010(From the judgement and order dated 06/12/2010 in WA No. 893/2010 &WA No. 894/2010 & WA No. 900/2010 & WA No. 901/2010 & WA No.902/2010 & WA No. 942/2010 & WA No. 943/2010 & WA No. 944/2010 & WANo. 945/2010 & WA No. 9483/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNIV.GRNATS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 10247 of 2011(With office report)SLP(C) NO. 14985 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 29/07/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar,Adv. Mr. Jawahar Narang, Adv. Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. V. Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. R.Chandrachud,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. G.S. Mani, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, Adv. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ravikant, Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash,Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv 2UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Ravi Kumar, the learned counsel for theUniversity Grants Commission, Bahadurshah ZafarMarg, New Delhi prays that counter affidavit filedby Mr. B.K. Singh, Deputy Secretary, UniversityGrants Commission on June 30, 2011 be permitted to

be withdrawn because facts have been mixed up andliberty be granted to file fresh affidavit in replyon behalf of the University Grants Commission.The prayer made is accepted and it is orderedaccordingly. The fresh affidavit in reply onbehalf of the University Grants Commission befiled within two weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeksthereafter. List the matters after four weeks. (Sonia) (Sneh Bala Mehra)Sr. P. A. Court Master

êITEM NO.126 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).36023-36032/2010P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNIV.GRNATS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report)WITH SLP(C) NO. 10247 of 2011(With office report)Date: 12/07/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearingtoday.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. Mr. R.Chandrachud, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Navin Prakash,Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad ,Adv UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R File not received. List again on 1.8.2011. (S.G. SHAH) REGISTRARrd

( 1ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.13 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).14985/2011(From the judgement and order dated 06/12/2010 in WPC No.13689/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)ALL INDIA RESEARCHERS COORDIN.COMMIT & ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugnedJudgment and prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 05/07/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Amarendra Sharan, Sr Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar,Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv. Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The learned counsel for the petitioners states at the Bar that in similar matter involving determination of validity of regulation made by UGC making NET compulsory for appointment of teachers, this Court has issued notice in SLP(C) No. 10247/2011. In view of the statement made at the Bar, issue notice. Tag the instant petition along with SLP(C) No. 10247/2011. (Sonia) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr. P. A. Court Master2

zITEM NO.20 COURT NO.13 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10247/2011(From the judgement and order dated 06/12/2010 in WP No. 25892/2010of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)M.PRABHAKAR Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondent(s)(With office report )Date: 21/04/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. R.Chandrachud,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag the instant petition along with SLP(C) Nos. 36023-36032/2010 (Sonia) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr P.A. Court Master

ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.13 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).36023-36032/2010(From the judgement and order dated 06/12/2010 in WA No.893/2010 & WA No. 894/2010 & WA No. 900/2010 & WA No. 901/2010 &WA No. 902/2010 & WA No. 942/2010 & WA No. 943/2010 & WA No.944/2010 & WA No. 945/2010 & WP No. 9483/2010 of The HIGH COURTOF MADRAS)P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNIV.GRNATS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugnedJudgment and prayer for interim relief and office report)I.A. NOS.11-20 (APPLNS. FOR IMPLEADMENT)Date: 21/01/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Prerna Priyadarshni, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. R. Prabhakaran, Adv. Mr. G. S. Mani, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Choudhry, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Applications for impleadment are allowed. Issue notice returnable after two weeks. In addition to normal mode of service, dasti is also permitted. (Neetu Sachdeva) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr. P. A. Court Master

"ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.13 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).36023-36032/2010(From the judgement and order dated 06/12/2010 in WA No. 893/2010 &WA No. 894/2010 & WA No. 900/2010 & WA No. 901/2010 & WA No.902/2010 & WA No. 942/2010 & WA No. 943/2010 & WA No. 944/2010 & WANo. 945/2010 & WA No. 9483/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)P.SUSEELA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNIV.GRNATS COMMN.& ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugnedJudgment and prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 07/01/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr Adv. Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Adv. Ms. Durga Devi, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The office report dated January 6, 2011 mentions that SLP(C)No. 17425 of 2007 etc. etc. entitled "N. Sailapathi versus Secretary to Government & Ors." arising out of similar issue : 2 :was listed before the Court on August 20, 2007 andthe same was dismissed. Therefore, the learned counsel for thepetitioners prays to adjourn the matters by twoweeks to enable her to verify the said fact. Theprayer is accepted and it is ordered accordingly.

(Sonia) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr P.A. Court Master