P. SUSEELA & ORS. ETC. ETC.versusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ORS. ETC. ETC.

                    [2015) 5 S.G.R. 643


             P. SUSEELA & ORS. ETC. ETC.                          A
                              v.
UNIVE~SITY @RANTS COMMISSION & ORS. ETC. ETC.

          (Civil Appeal Nos. 2891-2900 of 2015)
                                                                  8
                     MARCH 16, 2015

 [T.S. THAKUR AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.]

      University Grants Commission Regulations (Minimum           C
Qualifications Required for the Appointment And Career
Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions
affiliated to it) (the. third Amendment) Regulation 2009 -
Recruitment. and appointment of Lecturers in Universities!
Colleges/Institutions thereunder - NET!SLET to be the             D
minimum eligibility condition - Constitutional validity of -
Plea that earlier UGC exempted Ph.D and M.Phil
candidates from the said eligibility test, but later Union
Government issued a directive including NET!SLET to be
the minimum eligibility condition; and that the said              E
regulations were issued pursuant to directions of the Central
Government which themselves were issued outside the
powers conferred by UGC Act, thus, the eligibility conditions
would not apply to MPhil and Ph.D degrees awarded prior
to 31.12.2009 - Held: Object of the directions of Central         F
Government read with the UGC regulations of 200912010 are
to maintain excellence in standards of higher education -
Keeping the object in mind, a minimum eligibility condition
of passing the national eligibility test is laid down, thus, is
valid - Petitions fil&d by PhD/MPhil holders challenging the      G
regulations dismissed, however, the Regulations would be
prospective - University Grants Commission Act, 1956- ss.
20, 22, 26.
                                                                  H
                             643
644       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 5 S.C.R.

A        Dismissing the appeals and disposing of the
      contempt petition, the Court

        HELD: 1.1 A vested right would arise only if any of
   the appellants had actually been appointed to the post
B 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
C 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
D affected, nor does it mean that the regulation laying
  down such minimum eligibility condition would be
  retrospective in operation. Such condition would only
  be prospective as it would apply only at the stage of
  appointment. [Para 15] (661-G-H; 662-A-C]
E
        1.2 It was submitted based on the language of the
  direction of the Central Government dated 12th
  November, 2008 that all that the Government wanted the
  UGC to do was to "generally" prescribe NET as a
F qualification. But this did not mean that UGC had to
  prescribe this qualification without providing for any
  exemption. This cannot be accepted for the simple
  reason that the word "generally" precedes the word
  "compulsory" and it is clear that the language of the
G direction has been followed both in letter and in spirit
  by the UGC regulations of 2009 and 2010. [Para 16]
  [662-D-F]

     1.3 The object of the directions of the Central
H Government read with the UGC regulations of 2009/2010
                 P. SUSEELA v. U.G.C.                     645


are to maintain excellence in standards of higher A
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 B
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 C
get diluted. [Para 17][662-G-H; 663-A]

     1.4 A legitimate expectation must always yield to the
larger public interest. The larger public interest in the
instant case is nothing less than having highly qualified D
Assistant Professors to teach in UGC Institutions. Even
if, therefore, the private appellants 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 E
granted even after the Government direction of 12th
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 F
Act. [Para 20] [665-8-D]

    1.5 It is pointed out that the directions of the Central
Government under Section 20 of the UGC Act pertain to
questions of policy relating to national purpose; and
that the regulation making power is subservient to G
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 H
646      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 5 S.C.R.

A issued by the Central Government. [Para 22] [667-E-F]

       1.6 The Allahabad High Court adverted to an expert
  committee which laid down that if six out of eleven
  criteria laid down by the Committee was satisfied when
B 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
C this recommendation of the 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 did not accept the
  recommendations of the said Committee, it cannot be
D understood how the High Court sought to give effect
  to. such recommendations. Therefore, the Allahabad
  High Court judgment is set aside in its entirety. [Para 23)
  [667 -G-H; 668-A-C]

E     1.7 In SLP (C) N0.3054-3055/2014, a judgment of the
  same High Court again by a Division Bench arrived at
  the opposite conclusion. This matter also caused some
  distress. A Division Bench judgment of the same High
  Court is binding on a subsequent Division Bench. The
F 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. It cannot be appreciated the
  manner in which this subsequent judgment, (even
  though it has reached the right result) has dealt with an
G earlier binding Division Bench judgment of the same
  High Court. This judgment is also set aside only for the
  reason that it did not follow an earlier binding judgment
  [Para 24) [668-D-F; 669-A]

H      University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary
                 P. SUSEELA v. U.G.C.                      647


1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 392: (1996) 10 SCC 536; Udai Singh A
Dagar v. Union of India 2007 (6) SCR 707: (2007) 10 SCC
306; Trimbak Damodhar Rajpurkar v. Assaram Hiraman
Pati/1962 Suppl. 1 SCR 700; Union of India v. International
Trading Company 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 55: (2003) 5 SCC
437; Sethi Auto Service Station v. DOA 2008 (14) SCR 598: B
(2009) 1 sec 180 - referred to.

                 Case Law Reference

 1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 392 Referred to.          Para 10        c
 2007 (6) SCR 707            Referred to.      Para 11

 1962 Suppl. 1 SCR 700       Referred to.      Para 14
                                                      ..
 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 55      Referred to.      Para 18        D-
 2008 (14) SCR 598           Referred to.      Para 19

   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
2891-2900 of 2015
                                                              E
     From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12:2010 of the
Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.A. Nos. 893,
894, 900 to 902 and 942 to 945 of 2010 & W.P. No. 9483 of
2010.
                                                              F
                          WITH

   . Civil Appeal Nos. 2901, 2902, 2903, 2904-2906, 2907- .
2908, 2909, 2910, 2911, 2912, 2913, 2914-2915 and,2916
of 2015 and Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 286-287 of2014
                                                              G
    Nalini Chidambaram, Esha Mohapatra, Vikas Mehta, V.
Prabhakar, R. Chandrachud, Jyoti Prashar, Amit Kumar,
Abhishek Gupta, Aishwarya Bhati, Madhurima Ghosh, Neha
Meena, Amit verma, Hemendra Sharma, T. Gopal, Pawan           H
648       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A Saini, Anshuman, Anuj Bhandari, Arti Gupta, Ankit Mishra,
  Maruf Khan, Ravindra S. Garia, Sushma Suri for the
  Appellants.

        Sridhar Potaraju, Mukesh Verma, Menka Guruswamy,
B Himanshu Agarwal, Vivek Paul Oriel, B. V. Bairam Das,
  Ravinder Agarwal, Shailendra Sharma, G S. Mani, R. Sathish,
  M. P. Parthnan, S. Gowthaman, Subramonium Prasad, Gopal
  Singh, Navin Prakash, Govind Goel, Sanjay Kumar Yadav,
  Ankit Goel, Dr. Kailash Chand, S. S. Shaamshery, Amit
C Sharma, Sandeep Kohli, Ruchi Kohli, Surya Kant, Jayant
  Bhatt, Hamid Khan, Milind Kumar, T. V. George, Rakesh
  Taneja, Satya Lipsu Ray, Mohinder Jit Singh Rupal, Yamni
  Phyang, Pragati Neekhra, Arjun Harkauli, Nitin Kumar Thakur
  for the Respondents.
D
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        R. F. NARIMAN, J.

        1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
E
        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 6th December, 2010 was faced
  with the constitutional validity of the University Grants
F Commission Regulations (Minimum Qualifications Required
  for the Appointment And Career Advancement of Teachers in
  Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (the third
  Amendment) Regulation 2009 under which NET/SLET is to
  be the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and
G 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
H notification and do not apply to appointments made prior to
                    P. SUSEELA v. U.G.C.                            649
                      [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

that date. Along the lines of the Delhi High Court, the Madras       A
and Rajasthan High Courts have also repelled challenges to
the aforesaid regulations vide their judgments dated 5th
December, 2010 and 13th September, 2012. On the other
hand, the Allahabad High Court in a judgment dated 6th April,
2012 has found that the said regulations were issued pursuant        B
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 31st
December, 2009. However, a subsequent judgment of the                C
Allahabad High Court dated 6th January, 2014 distinguished
the aforesaid judgment and upheld the self-same regulations.
Whereas the Union of India is in appeal before us from the
Allahabad High Court judgment dated 5th April, 2012, M.Phil.         D
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          E
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 F
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:- G

     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 H
650      SUPREME COURT REPORTS'·                  [2015] 5 S,C.R.


A     ·, be given to it by the Central Government.
        (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
 B      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
c       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
D        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;
 E
         (cf) specifying the institutions or class of institutions
         which may be recognised by the Commission under
         clause (~ of Section 2;

         (e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be
 F
         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;

         (~ defining the minimum standards of instruction for the
G        grant of any degree by any University;

         (g) regulating the maintenance of standa~ds and the co-
         ordination of work or facilities in Universities.

 H       [(h) regulating the establishment of institutions referred
                   P. SUSEELA v. U.G.C.                           651
                     [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

     to in clause (cac) of Section 12 and other matters A
     relating to such institutions;

     (1) specifying the matters in respect of which fees may
     be charged, and scales of fees in accordance with
     whie:Jq fees may be charged, by a college under sub-          s
     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 C
     clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) [or clause (h) or
     clause (1) or clause(/)] of sub-section (1) except with the
     previous approval of the Central Government.

     (3) The power to make regulations conferred by this D
     section.[except clause (1) 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 tile regulations or ahy of them but no
     retrospective effect shall be given to any regulation so E
     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                F
prescribing the qualification for the teaching post of Lecturer
in colleges as follows:-

   "M. Phil. degree or a recognised degree beyond
Master's level".                                                   G

    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.         H
652       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A Pursuant to the said Committee report, the UGC framed
  regulations on 19th 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 21st June, 1995, a
B 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 31st December, 1993
  are exempted from the said eligibility test for appointment to
  the post of Lecturer. This continued till 2002, the only change
C made being that the exemption continued qua Ph.D. thesis
  holders for dates that were extended till 31st December,
  2002. This state of affairs continued until 2008 when the
  Mungekar Committee submitted its final report recommending
D that NET should be made a compulsory requirement for
  appointment of Lecturer in addition to the candidate
  possessing M.Phil. or Ph.D degrees. On 12th November,
  2008, the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human
  Resources Development, Government of India, issued a
E directive under Section 22 of the UGC Act providing inter a/ia
  as under:-

         "UGC shall, for serving the national purpose of
         maintaining standards of higher education, frame
         appropriate regulations within a period of thirty days
F
         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
G        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
H        Ph.D. prescribed by it, and also that the degree of Ph.D.
                   P. SUSEELA v. U.GC.                            653
                     [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

     was awarded by a University or Institution Deemed to A
     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                 B
promulgated the impugned Regulations of 2009, the 3rd
Amendment of which provides as follows:-

     "NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility
     condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers        c
     in Universities/Colleges/ Institutions.

     Provided, however, that candidates, who are or have
     been awarded Ph.D. Degree in compliance of the
     "University Grants Commission (minimum standards and D
     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."       E.

      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            F
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 301h
March, 2010 by the Ministry under Section 20 of the Act
directing the UGC as follows:-                            G

     '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:                                               H
654         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A          (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 application of the UGC (Mini-
 B         mum Qualifications for appointment and career ad-
           vancement of teachers in universities and colleges) 3rd
           Amendment Regulations, 2009 for appointment as Lec-
           turer in universities/colleges/institutions;

C          (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;
 D         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
 E         applicability of NET shall not be implemented as being
           contrary to national policy.

           The above said directions shall be implemented by the
           UGC forthwith."
 F
          7. Pursuant to this directive, on 30th 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
 G         Assistant Professors in Universities/Colleges/
           Institutions.

           Provided however, that candidates, who are or have
           been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the
 H         University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards
                  P. SUSEELA v. U.G.C.                      655
                    [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

     and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, A
     2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the
     minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for
     recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor
     equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/
     Institutions."                                        B

    8. By two resolutions dated 12th August, 2010 and 27th
September, 2010, the UGC opined that since the regulations
are prospective in nature, all candidates having M. Phil.
degree on or before 1Oth July, 2009 and all persons who C
obtained the Ph.D. degree on or before 31st 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.                  D

     9. The Central Government, however, by letter dated 3rd
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 E
Lecturer/Assistant Professor must fulfill the minimum
qualifications prescribed by the UGC including the minimum
eligibility condition of having passed the NET test.

     10. Learned counsel assailing the Delhi, Madras and F
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. G ·
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 H
656       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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 Article 14 in that unequals have been treated equally as
C 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
0
  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.
 E      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
F 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 pur.poses, the decision of the Central Government
G 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 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
H is laid down any time before his entry into a profession.
                    P. SUSEELA v. U.G.C.                            657
                      [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

      12. It is clear that Section 26 enables the Commission         A
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      B
which shall guide the Commission in the discharge of its
functions under the Act. It is clear, therefore, that both the
directions of 12th November, 2008 and 30th March, 2010 are
directions made pertaining to questions of policy relating to
national purposes inasmuch as, being based on the                    C
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/              D
Institutions. This is for the obvious reason that M. Phil.
degrees or Ph.D. degrees are granted by different
Universities/Institutions having differing standards of
excellence. It is quite possible to conceive of M.Phil/ Ph.D.
d~grees being granted by several Universities which did not          E
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        F
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      G
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        H
658         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A the UGC Act. It is clear, therefore, that any regulation made
  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
 B    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
 C    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
 D     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
 E     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 becomes law, it may
       issue directions under Section 20 pursuant to which the very
 F     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.
 G      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
 H contention, it is necessary to distinguish between an existing
                   P. SUSEELA v. U.G.C.                             659
                     [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

right and a vested right. This distinction was made with great A
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 B
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:

     "Besides, it is necessary to bear in mind that the right        C
     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           D
     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    E
     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        F
     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.                                                        G

      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 H
660   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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
c     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,
      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
D
      3 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1892
      (55 & 56 Viet. c. 13). In substance Section 3 provided
      that in all leases containing a covenant, condition or
      agreement against assigning, underletting, or parting
E     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
F     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
G     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
H
                    P. SUSEELA v. U.G.C.                            661
                      [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

     us to be substantially similar. ·                               A

        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             B
     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 Bh1kabhai [ (1956) 58 BLR 85]
     . It was held in Durlabbhai case [ (1956) 58 BLR 85]            C
     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 was no more than
     this that it imposed a new and additional limitation on         D
     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      E
     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             F
     matures; that is the date on which the tenancy stands
     terminat~d".

     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. lill that G
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 H
662       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015) 5 S.C.R.


A 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
B regulation laying down such 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.
c
        16. One of the learned counsel for the petitioners argued,
  based on the language of the direction of the Central
  Government dated 121h November, 2008 that all that the
  Government wanted the UGC to do was to "generally"
D 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
E 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
F Central Government read with the UGC regulations of 2009/
  2010 are to maintain excellence in standards of higher
  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
G 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
H arbitrary or discriminatory in this - in fact it is a core function
                   P. SUSEELA v. U.G.C.                       663
                     [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

of the UGC to see that such standards do not get diluted.         A

     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
                                                                  8
(2003) 5 sec 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         C
     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
                                                                  0
     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, the disproportion of the
     imposition, the prevailing condition at the relevant time,   E
     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         F
     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 Born LR 521] , Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Union      G
     oflndia [(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 Kera/a [(1997)
     9 sec 495: AIR 1997 SC 128]."
                                                                  H
664        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A         19. Similarly, in Sethi Auto Service Station v. ODA
      (2009) 1 sec 180, it was held:-

           "33. It is well settled that the concept of legitimate
          expectation has no role to play where the State action
B          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
c         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,
D         the court will not interfere on the ground of procedural
          fairness to a person whose interest based on legitimate
          expectation might be affected. 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
E         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
F paragraph 22, some of the very appellants before us are
  referred to as having a legitimate expectation inthe 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
G 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
H exemption was, therefore, repelled. Even assuming that the
                   P. SUSEELA v. U.G.C.                          665
                     [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

said judgment would continue to apply even after the 2009 A
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. Even if, therefore,
the private appellants before us had a legitimate expectation B
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 12th November, 2008 would have to yield to the
larger public interest of selection of the most meritorious C
among candidates to teach in Institutions governed by the
UGCAct.

     21. The Allahabad High Court in its judgment dated 6th
April, 2012 has held as follows:                                     D

     "104. CONCLUSIONS:

     1. The Central Government, in exercise of its powers
     under Section 20 (1) of UGC Act, 1956, does not                 E
     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                 F
     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.
                                                                     G
     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 purpose on which
     the Central Government could have issued directions             H
666   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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
C     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.
D
      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
E     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
F     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.
G
      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
H     eligible, even if they are not NET/SLET/SET qualified,
                   P. SUSEELA v. U.G.C.                         667
                     [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

      if they have been awarded Ph.D degree with any six A
      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 B
      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 C
      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."
                                                                    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. E
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.
                                                                    F
     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 G
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 H
668        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A 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
B Allahabad High Court judgment dated 6th April, 2012 in its
  entirety.

          24. In SLP,'(C) N0.3054-3055/2014, a judgment of the
    same High Court dated 5th January, 2014 again by a Division
C Bench arrived at the opposite conclusion. This is also a
    matter which causes us some distress. A Division Bench
    judgment of the 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
D 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
E . 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,
F 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
G 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, however, not impact the fact that the writ petitions in the
H 2014 judgment have been dismissed. They stand dismissed
                 P. SUSEELA v. U.G.C.                             669
                   [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

having regard to the reasoning in the judgment delivered by A
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.         B

Nidhi Jain                       Appeals dismissed and
                                 contempt petition disposed of.