Judgment : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in respect of (i) impugned order of the 1st Respondent in Ref.No.11058/A2/98 dated 17. 99 and (ii) impugned termination order issued by the 3rd Respondent College in Ref. No.A1/340/CS/2000 dated 15. 2000 and quash the condition that the Petitioner should pass NET/SLET within two years time from 15. 1998 failing which Petitioners services shall be terminated and consequently direct the Respondents to restore the Petitioners appointment and approval for the Petitioner continuation as Lecturer in 3rd Respondents College in Aided stream in the Department of Computer Science. Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order dated 17. 1999 made in letter No.11058/A2/98 by Bharathiar University terminating the services of the Petitioner imposing condition to pass NET/SLET within two years time. 2. Petitioner has obtained Masters degree in Computer Application with first class in Bharathiar University, Coimbatore in May 1996. Her name was sponsered by employment exchange, Chennai in its statement No.A1/21/CS/98 dated 17. 98 to the 3rd Respondents college. Petitioner was selected and she was appointed as Lecturer in Computer Science with effect from 20.98. 3. Case of the Petitioner is that approval for appointing her as Lecturer was granted on 9. 98 in Ref.No.11058/E2/98. University Grants Commission (for short U.G.C.) had issued guidelines stating that qualification in NET/SLET was mandatory and the same was accepted by the University on 199. Pursuant to the guidelines prescribed by U.G.C. revised norms for qualification was forwarded to all colleges for the post of Lecturer. By the impugned communication dated 17. 99, 1st Respondent University has informed that Petitioner would be eligible for the post of Lecturer in Computer Science (Aided) with effect from 20.8.98 subject to passing NET/SLET within two years from 15. 98, failing which her services shall be terminated. Case of the Petitioner is that imposition of condition that she should acquire NET/SLET within two years from the date of U.G.C. letter dated 15. 98 is exfacie and illegal. According to the Petitioner, the act of University making U.G.C. guildelines retrospectively is illegal and ultra vires its powers and therefore, seeks to quash the impugned order of the 1st Respondent-University and the impugned termination order issued by the 3rd Respondent college. 4. 98 is exfacie and illegal. According to the Petitioner, the act of University making U.G.C. guildelines retrospectively is illegal and ultra vires its powers and therefore, seeks to quash the impugned order of the 1st Respondent-University and the impugned termination order issued by the 3rd Respondent college. 4. 1st Respondent-University has filed counter stating that it had sent revised norms for qualification only as per the guildelines of U.G.C. 1st Respondent University had accepted the guildelines prescribed by the U.G.C. and the guidelines issued by U.G.C. will have to be obeyed by all the Universities. According to the 1st Respondent change in qualification had been done based on the guidelines issued by U.G.C. and the same cannot be said to be arbitrary. 5. 2nd Respondent has filed the counter stating that U.G.C. has implemented NET/SLET qualification retrospectively i.e. from 211. 1995 and 1st Respondent had issued modification letter No.11058/A2/98 dated 17. 99 to the 3rd Respondent stating that Petitioner would be eligible for the post of Lecturer in Computer Science with effect from 20.8.98 subject to passing NET/SLET within two years time from 15. 98 failing which her services shall be terminated. Even though, Petitioner knows that she is likely to be terminated on 15. 2000, she has not raised any objection against the condition for passing NET/SLET examination before 15. 2000 and she has not challenged the same and therefore, Writ Petition is vitiated by delay and latches. 6. Mr.K.Shakespeare, learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that when the Respondent had earlier informed the Petitioner that she is eligible for appointment as Lecturer by communication dated 9. 98, the Respondents cannot resile from the same. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that imposing condition as per U.G.C. guidelines making it mandatory to qualify NET/SLET is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in any event, Petitioner is now qualified in M.Phil and as per the modified regulations of U.G.C., the candidates who are qualified in M.Phil are exempted from NET and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 7. Ms. N. Kavitha, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent-University has contended that Petitioner should acquire SLET qualification even in 1999 itself and if she had acquired SLET qualification, question of termination on 15. 2000 would not have arisen. 7. Ms. N. Kavitha, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent-University has contended that Petitioner should acquire SLET qualification even in 1999 itself and if she had acquired SLET qualification, question of termination on 15. 2000 would not have arisen. The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent further submitted that Petitioner has not raised any objection against the conditions for passing NET/SLET examination and she wantonly waited without any appeal or objection and therefore, Writ Petition is vitiated due to delay and latches. The learned counsel further submitted that U.G.C. is a necessary party and Writ Petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 8. On behalf of the 2nd Respondent heard Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate. 9. Sec.15 of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 empowers the Universities to make regulations statute or ordinances specifying qualification required for the appointment of teachers employed in any private college. 3rd Respondents college comes under the jurisdiction of the 1st Respondents University. 1st Respondent has stated in its letter No.11058/E2/98 dated 9. 98 that the petitioner is eligible for appointment as Lecturer in Computer Science with effect from the date of appointment i.e. 20.8.1998. Again the 1st Respondent has given another approval in his letter No.11058/A2/98 dated 23. 1999 to the effect that Petitioner is eligible for appointment as Lecturer in Computer Science with effect from 20.8.1998 in the prescribed forms. 10. University Grants Commission by itsletter dated 15. 1998 in No.T4-12/86 (NET) revised the qualification prescribing the qualification NET/SLET as mandatory which read as follows:- "As U.G.C. has included the subject Computer Application and Electronic Science in the National Level Eligibility test for J.R.F. Award and Lectureship from June and December 1995 onwards respectively, NET or SLET (accredited by U.G.C.) Qualification is mandatory for these subjects also with effect from the date of declaration of result i.e. 211. 1995 for Computer Application and 15. 96 for Electronic Science. If NET/SLET candidates are not available the recruitment body may refer the case to the Additional Secretary – 1 U.G.C., New Delhi-2 for specific exemption with complete justification." "If the University has already appointed such candidates who do not possess NET or SLET accredited by the U.G.C. qualification as Lecturers on permanent basis after the date 211. 95 and 15. If NET/SLET candidates are not available the recruitment body may refer the case to the Additional Secretary – 1 U.G.C., New Delhi-2 for specific exemption with complete justification." "If the University has already appointed such candidates who do not possess NET or SLET accredited by the U.G.C. qualification as Lecturers on permanent basis after the date 211. 95 and 15. 96 in Computer Applications and Electronic Sciences respectively to clear NET within two years from the date of this letter or their services may be terminated." 11. U.G.C. being grant giving body, the guildelines issued by U.G.C. will have to be obeyed by all Universities. 1st Respondent had only accepted the guildelines prescribing NET/SLET qualification as mandatory. There is no force in the contention of the Petitioner that imposing condition that she should clear NET/SLET and issuance of impugned notice dated 17. 99 is illegal and arbitrary. Prescribing qualification of NET/SLET by U.G.C. has been upheld by the Supreme Court in AIR 1995 SC 336 [University of Delhi v. Raj Singh and others]. To maintain good standards of teaching when U.G.C. has prescribed qualification, University has to necessarily obey the guidelines issued by U.G.C. and it is not open to the Petitioner that imposing of condition to qualify in NET/SLET is arbitrary. 12. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has submittd that Bharathiar University, Trichy has conducted SLET examinations during 1999 and if the Petitioner was capable, she could have acquire SLET qualification even in 1999 itself and had she acquired SLET qualification during 1999, question of termination on 15. 2000 would not have arisen and the Petitioner has deliberately not availed the chance to acquire NET/SLET qualification during 1999. 13. Letter No.11058/A2/99 dated 23. 1999 was issued approving qualification of the Petitioner for the post of Lecturer in Computer Science. According to the 1st Respondent-University the same was issued by oversight and the first Respondent-University has immediately sent letter No.11058/A2/98 dated 6. 1999 in modification of letter dated 23. 1999. In the letter dated 6. 1999, 1st Respondent has clearly stated that NET/SLET qualification is mandatory for Lecturers in Computer Science. In the impugned letter dated 17. 1999, 1st Respondent-University has stated that Petitioner would be eligible for the post of Lecturer in Computer Science with effect from 20.8.1988 subject to passing NET/SLET within two years from 15. 1998, failing which her services shall be terminated. In the impugned letter dated 17. 1999, 1st Respondent-University has stated that Petitioner would be eligible for the post of Lecturer in Computer Science with effect from 20.8.1988 subject to passing NET/SLET within two years from 15. 1998, failing which her services shall be terminated. The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent forcibly contended that there was no challenge for the earlier communications and that Petitioner has deliberately waited till the end and had filed Writ Petition only on 6. 2000 and therefore, she is not entitled for the discretionary relief exercising jurisidiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that though 1st Respondent-University has earlier approved qualification, in the changed scenario condition ought not to have imposed upon Petitioner to qualify in NET/SLET. Of course, Petitioner ought to have earlier challenged the mandatory condition so prescribed for qualification. The point falling for consideration is whether services of the Petitioner is liable to be terminated on the ground that she was not qualified in NET/SLET? 15. U.G.C. guildelines dated 15. 1998 revising qualification by letter itself prescribes exemptions. As per exemption clause, if NET/SLET candidates are not available the recruitment body may refer the case to Additional Secretary for specific exemption with complete justification. In fact, 3rd Respondent-College did write to the University for exemption by the letter dated 24. 2000. The same was returned by University by letter dated 15. 2000 stating that recommendation to U.G.C. should have been sent much earlier. The fact that 3rd Respondent-College did sent recommendation for exemption is the aspect to be reckoned with. 16. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn my attention to the amended regulations of U.G.C. dated 16. 2006. As per the amended regulations, candidates having M.Phil degree in the concern subject are exempted from NET for U.G. level teaching. 1st Respondent-University has adopted modified regulations on 27. 2006. Modified regulations read as under:- "Wherein it is stated that, "NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer for those with post-graduate degree. However, the candidates having Ph.D degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG level and UG level teaching. The candidates having M.Phil degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching only." During the pendency of Writ Petition, Petitioner has obtained M.Phil degree in June 2004. However, the candidates having Ph.D degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG level and UG level teaching. The candidates having M.Phil degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching only." During the pendency of Writ Petition, Petitioner has obtained M.Phil degree in June 2004. Degree certificate of Master of Philosophy was produced for perusal of the court. When the Petitioner is qualified in M.Phil Computer Science, she is qualified as per the amended regulations and therefore, Petitioners service cannot be terminated. 17. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has submitted that Petitioner having not challenged the conditions at the earlier point and that she having obtained an order of Stay and thereafter acquiring M.Phil degree, discretionary relief is not to be granted to the Petitioner. The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent further submitted that as per U.G.C. guildelines when the Petitioner was not qualified with prescribed qualifications at the relevant time, subsequent qualification acquired by her cannot be taken note of so as to give benefit of subsequent amendments. 18. Contention that the Petitioner cannot be given benefit of amendment does not merit acceptance. It is no doubt true that right of parties crystalised on the date of filing of Writ Petition. However, court has power to take note of subsequent events. 19. In 1992 AIR SCW 336 [Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram), the Honble Supreme Court held as follows:- "The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the list. But this is subject to an exception. 19. In 1992 AIR SCW 336 [Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram), the Honble Supreme Court held as follows:- "The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the list. But this is subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking a cautious cognizance of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief.In Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri [AIR 1941 FC 5] Chief Justice Sir Maurice Gwyer observed:- "But with regard to the question whether the court is entitled to take into account legislative changes since the decision under appeal was given, I desire to point out that the rule adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States is the same as that which I think commends itself to all three members of this Court. In Patterson v. State of Alabama (1934) 294 US 600, Hughes C.J. Said: "We have frequently held that in the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction we have power not only to correct error in the judgment under review but to make such disposition of the case as justice requires. And in determining what justice does require, the court is bound to consider any change, either in fact or in law, which has supervened since the judgment was entered. Subsequent event may be one purely of law or founded on facts. Court can and some times must take notice subsequent events. Subsequent amendment, modification of regulations having the effect of modifying the qualification, Court would be justified in taking notice of the same which the Petitioner seeks to rely upon. When the 3rd Respondent has earlier recommended for exemption and the Petitioner qualified M.Phil is certainly entitled for NET exemption as per the amended qualifications. 20. In the result, the impugned order of the 1st Respondent-University in No.11058/A2/98 dated 17. 1999 and the termination order issued by the 3rd Respondent-College in No.A1/340/CS/2000 dated 15. 2000 are quashed and this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.