JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant by way of Writ Petition No. 97/2002 seeks to quash the notification dated 21st June, 1995 Annexure-7 issued by the University Grants Commission providing an exception to the general requirement of clearing the eligibility test for appointment as Lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC in terms of the University Grants Commission (qualifications required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of a University and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991, by Inserting the following proviso as an exception to the requirement of clearing the eligibility test, otherwise required for being considered for appointment as a Lecturer: "Provided that candidates who have submitted Ph.D. thesis or passed the M. Phil examination by 31st December, 1993 are exempted from the eligibility test for lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC". 3. The petition has been framed on the premise that the proviso has provided the qualification for being appointment as Lecturer in any University or affiliated institution thereto. The contention of the petitioner in this behalf was that by dint of this proviso, two years course M.Phil has been equated with higher degree of Ph.D course which is of much longer duration, therefore, it was a discriminatory provision. 4. The petitioner has acquired the requisite Post Graduate qualification in the subject in which he was seeking an appointment as a Lecturer in 1992. However, he had not opted for pursuing his M.Phil course. Thereafter, he got himself enrolled as a research scholar in Ph.D in 1992. However, he has not submitted his thesis until 31st December, 1993. 5. Apparently, the petitioner was not entitled to claim exemption from appearing at eligibility test in terms of proviso. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that earlier thereto under circular dated 30th January, 1990 a gap of two years between the award of M.Phil degree and a doctorally degree has been made. However, said gap has been done away by the impugned notification. 7. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition summarily relying on the decision of Supreme Court in University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Choudhary (1996) 10 SCC 536 . 8. However, said gap has been done away by the impugned notification. 7. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition summarily relying on the decision of Supreme Court in University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Choudhary (1996) 10 SCC 536 . 8. Learned counsel for the appellant aggrieved with the said judgment has raised the same contention on the premise that by the impugned proviso two degrees namely M.Phil and Ph.D have been equated while they are not equal in stature and the period required for their completion being different they cannot be put at par with reference to same cut off date. 9. We are unable to accept this contention as the same is inherently fallacious. 10. Firstly, impugned proviso in no way detract from the requisite qualification required for appointment as a Lecturer. It is by statutory provision framed under the National Education Test Act in order to provide a uniform qualitative test for the purpose of giving appointment to teachers at the institutions meant for higher education namely the Universities and other institutions affiliated to any University, it was envisaged that apart from the other qualification necessary for teaching the subject, the aspirant must have passed the test held for that purpose popularly known as NET or SLET only. In order to come over the temporary difficulties in the transition period that certain exception has been granted from insisting on candidates to have passed the NET or SLET as the case may be, before considering for such appointment in any University or affiliated institutions. For availing such exception, certain conditions are envisaged. 11. The language of the proviso referred to above itself suggests that on fulfilment of conditions mentioned therein a candidate holding the requisite academic qualifications would still be considered for appointment, even if he has not taken the test. In the absence of such exemption of candidates, irrespective of requisite academic qualifications any aspirant will be required to undertake the eligibility test of NET or SLET, before they could be considered for appointment. 12. An exception to general requirement cannot be raised to the height of the eligibility criterion itself. In the absence of such exemption of candidates, irrespective of requisite academic qualifications any aspirant will be required to undertake the eligibility test of NET or SLET, before they could be considered for appointment. 12. An exception to general requirement cannot be raised to the height of the eligibility criterion itself. Assuming for the moment that the proviso is held to be invalid being in breach of any constitutional guarantees, it would not come to the assistance of the petitioner to be considered for such appointment without taking the test which he is otherwise required to take before he could be considered for appointment. 13. The facts of the present case in relation to the petitioner are that he has passed his M.Sc. in Botany in 1992. He has not been enrolled for M.Phil at any time and has not submitted Ph.D before the cut off date 31.12.1993. Thus, undisputedly, the petitioner is not within the ambit of exception, would be required to take examination before he stakes his claim for consideration. Therefore, even if, the exception provided to the rule is held to be ultravires, still he will be required to take examination. Therefore, so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has no purposeful litigating interest in the matter. 14. It is also well settled that ordinarily no person can claim a vested right to be granted exception from general rule and ordinarily violation of fundamental rights under Article 14 does not come into play in the matter of providing exception. The authority having jurisdiction to grant exception has a wide discretion in choosing the area in which exception is to be provided. The exception to the general rule is that where in implementing exception, if it works in violation of Article 14 or there is such an inherent defect in the provision which cuts at the very object for which such exception or exemption is carved out. No such case is made out in the present case. 15. The distinction drawn by the learned counsel also appears to be a distinction without difference. No such case is made out in the present case. 15. The distinction drawn by the learned counsel also appears to be a distinction without difference. While the notification of 1990 provides for securing a degree of M.Phil before a particular date, as well as a degree of Ph.D. before a particular date, whereas the notification of 21st June, 1995 refers to securing M. Phil prior to 31st December, 1993 but does not insist on completion of Ph.D course prior to 31st December, 1993. It merely requires submission of Ph.D thesis which may be approved later on, the time framed for which has not been transcribed. Albeit, in our opinion, it would be necessary that such Ph.D. thesis though submitted prior to 31st December, 1993 must be approved before the consideration for such appointment takes place. A disapproval or rejected thesis cannot be considered for availing exception. 16. It may be noticed in contrast that notification of 1990 exempted all candidates who have already awarded Ph.D or M.Phil degree, before prescribed date, from the necessity of appearing in the eligibility test. Thereafter, it also provided for such exemptions for future by envisaging a candidate who will be awarded M.Phil upto December, 1990 and Ph.D upto December, 1992. 17. Thus, the exemption notification of 1990 gave out clearly that those candidates who have already been enrolled as students of M.Phil or Ph.D. If they are able to secure that degree within the prescribed time limit only in future they will be exempted from necessity of appearing In the eligibility test. 18. We further find that in the decision of Sadhana (supra) the Supreme Court considering the very same notification with which we are concerned In this appeal, has held that the exemption from the requirement regarding clearing the eligibility test is to be confined within the limits enacted in the amendment introduced in the 1991 regulations by notification dated 21.6.1995. It further held that such candidates constitute a distinct class who could be treated separately in so far as the requirement of clearing the eligibility test was concerned. The Court said in no uncertain terms that it is unable to hold that the exemption has been granted by the amendment introduced in the 1991 regulations by notification dated 21.6.1995 is violative of right of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. 19. The Court said in no uncertain terms that it is unable to hold that the exemption has been granted by the amendment introduced in the 1991 regulations by notification dated 21.6.1995 is violative of right of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. 19. We are of the opinion, that must be end of road for the petitioner. 20. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed summarily.Appeal dismissed. *******