Judgment :- 1. Petitioner challenges the Syndicate Resolution dated 11. 1999 and Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.04496/A4/2000 dated 15. 2000 and disallowing the Petitioners salary bill after 15. 2000 and other directions. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:- (i) Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Computer Science by the 4th Respondent in his College on 19. 1997. Petitioner has obtained Master Degree in Computer Application First Class in 1993 in Bharathiar University, Coimbatore. At that time there was no condition for imposing NET/SLET. (ii) Petitioner is working continuously as Lecturer in Computer Science in the 4th Respondent College from 19. 1997 in a permanent vacancy on regular basis and received Government grant as salary from 19. 1997 to 15. 2000. (iii) The UGC, New Delhi has issued an order No.F.4-12/86 (NET) dated 15. 1998 retrospectively to the 3rd Respondent stating that NET/SLET is mandatory for the subject Computer Application w.e.f. 211. 1995. It has added in the same letter that if the University has already appointed such candidates (i.e. who do not possess NET/SLET qualification accredited by UGC) as Lecturers on permanent basis after 211. 1995 in Computer Application without prior permission of the UGC, New Delhi the candidates have to clear the NET within two years time from the date of its letter i.e. 15. 1998, or their services may be terminated. (iv) Third Respondent University considered the letter of UGC and passed resolution on 11. 1999 making NET/SLET qualification as mandatory for the subjects Computer Application and Electronic Sciences which is challenged in this Writ Petition. (v) Third Respondent communicated the above resolution to the Principals of all Aided Arts and Science Colleges affiliated to its University that the candidates appointed as Lecturers are permanent basis (do not possess NET/SLET) after the dates 211. 1995 and 15. 1996 in Computer Application and Electronic Sciences respectively and informed that candidates have to clear NET within two years from the date of UGC letter dated 1`5. 1998 ( i.e. before 15. 2000) or their services may be terminated. (vi) 1st Respondent communicated copy of UGC letter F.4/12/86 NET dated 15. 1998 to the Secretary of all Aided Private Colleges in Tamil Nadu State (including the Secretary, C.B.M. College, Kovaipudur) in Proceedings Mu.Mu.19523/F1/98-2 dated 212. 1998 and informed that NET/SLET qualification is mandatory for those who were appointed after 211. 2000) or their services may be terminated. (vi) 1st Respondent communicated copy of UGC letter F.4/12/86 NET dated 15. 1998 to the Secretary of all Aided Private Colleges in Tamil Nadu State (including the Secretary, C.B.M. College, Kovaipudur) in Proceedings Mu.Mu.19523/F1/98-2 dated 212. 1998 and informed that NET/SLET qualification is mandatory for those who were appointed after 211. 1995 as Lecturer in Computer Science. Petitioner has not acquired NET/SLET qualification till 15. 2000. In order to implement the order dated 15. 1998 of UGC and the letter of the University, 1st and 2nd Respondent asked the 4th Respondent College to terminate the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 15. 2000 and stop claiming the salary from 15. 2000 vide letter Na.Ka. 4496/A4/2000 dated 15. 2000 which is also challenged in this Writ Petition. (vii) Case of the Writ Petitioner is that the act of the University making UGC guidelines retrospectively is illegal and ultra vires its powers and therefore, Petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order of the 3rd Respondent University and the impugned order of the 1st and 2nd Respondents stating to stop claiming the salary from 15. 2000. 3. Third Respondent-University has filed counter stating that it had sent revised norms for qualification only as per the guidelines of U.G.C. 3rd Respondent University had accepted the guidelines 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 3rd 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. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter stating that pursuant to the order of UGC and based upon the University Syndicate resolution, 1st Respondent has informed the Secretary of all Aided Private Colleges that NET/SLET qualification is mandatory for those who were appointed after 211. 1995 as Lecturer in Computer Science. It is averred that since the Petitioner has not qualified in NET/SLET till 15. 2000, 2nd Respondent asked the 4th Respondent to terminate the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 15. 2000 and the said order is based upon the direction of UGC and the same cannot be challenged. 5. Mr. K. Shakespeare, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner having been appointed, imposing condition as per UGC guidelines making it mandatory to qualify NET/SLET is arbitrary and illegal. 2000 and the said order is based upon the direction of UGC and the same cannot be challenged. 5. Mr. K. Shakespeare, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner having been appointed, imposing condition as per UGC guidelines making it mandatory to qualify NET/SLET is arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that in any event, Petitioner is now qualified in M.Phil and as per the modified regulations of UGC, the candidates who are qualified in M.Phil are exempted from NET and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 6. Ms. N. Kavitha, learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent-University has contended that Petitioner should have acquired SLET qualification even in 1999 itself and if he had acquired SLET qualification, question of termination on 15. 2000 would not have arisen. The learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent further submitted that Petitioner has not raised any objection against the conditions for passing NET/SLET examination and he wantonly waited without any appeal or objection and therefore, Writ Petition is vitiated due to delay and laches. The learned counsel further submitted that U.G.C. is a necessary party and Writ Petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 7. Mr. N. Senthilkumar, learned AGP would submit that Respondents 1 and 2 have only communicated and implemented the prospective condition of UGC and the same cannot be challenged. 8. At the time when the Petitioner was appointed on 19. 1997 as Lecturer in Computer Science, there was no condition for imposing NET/SLET. 4th Respondent is an Aided College. 3rd Respondent University is the competent authority to make rules and regulations regarding the qualifications of teaching staff in Private Colleges as per Sec.15 of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulations) Act, 1976. At the time of appointment, since there was no condition for NET/SLET, 2nd Respondent who is the salary payment authority to the Petitioner has also approved the appointment of the Petitioner by reference No.Na.Ka.E3/100/98 dated 07. 1998 without any condition. 9. University Grants Commission, Government of India, New Delhi is an authority which grants funds to the Universities and Colleges. In order to maintain high standard of education, the qualification of the teaching faculty was considered and UGC decided that the qualification approval to be fixed and that the candidate should pass an Eligibility Test conducted by the UGC through its nodal agency like 3rd Respondent -Bharathiar University. 10. In order to maintain high standard of education, the qualification of the teaching faculty was considered and UGC decided that the qualification approval to be fixed and that the candidate should pass an Eligibility Test conducted by the UGC through its nodal agency like 3rd Respondent -Bharathiar University. 10. University Grants Commission norms was mandatory in nature. The norms were placed before the Syndicate and the same was accepted by the Syndicate on 11. 1999 stating that a pass in Eligibility Test was necessary and all the Universities, Colleges which are affiliated by the University are all governed by the UGC norms. Syndicate passed resolution which was communicated to Principals of Aided Arts and Science Colleges affiliated to its University including the 4th Respondent College by impugned reference No.15026/A2/98 dated 22. 1999. 11. University informed all the Aided Arts and Science Colleges that those Lecturers appointed after 211. 1995 and 15. 1996 in Computer Application and Electronic Sciences respectively (who do not possess NET/SLET), the candidates have to clear NET within two years time from the date of UGC letter dated 15. 1998. 1st Respondent also communicated the copy of UGC letter dated 15. 1998 to the Secretary of Aided Private Colleges informing that NET/SLET qualification is mandatory for those who were appointed after 211. 1995 as a Lecturer in Computer Science by its Proceedings dated 212. 1998. 12. Syndicate resolution dated 11. 1999 and the communication of the 2nd Respondent dated 22. 1999 are only implementation of the condition of UGC, New Delhi. UGC, which is appointed as the educational agency to control and to supervise the education pattern and has thought it fit to introduce the Eligibility Test. The laws of the UGC are statutory in nature and they have to be adhered strictly. The norms gave an opportunity of two years to candidates to qualify for the Eligibility Test. It is difficult to accept the contention that University has acted arbitrarily in imposing the condition to qualify NET/SLET. Both University and the Respondents 1 & 2 have only communicated and implemented the condition of UGC, which is the controlling and supervising agency. Therefore, Syndicate resolution dated 11. 1999 and communication of the 2nd Respondent dated 22. 1999 communicating UGC letter F.4-12/86 (NET) dated 15. 1998 cannot be challenged. 13. Since, 4th Respondent is an Aided College, 100% salary is paid from the Government grant to the Petitioner. Therefore, Syndicate resolution dated 11. 1999 and communication of the 2nd Respondent dated 22. 1999 communicating UGC letter F.4-12/86 (NET) dated 15. 1998 cannot be challenged. 13. Since, 4th Respondent is an Aided College, 100% salary is paid from the Government grant to the Petitioner. Since, Petitioner has not acquired NET/SLET qualification till 15. 2000, in order to implement the order of UGC, in letter Na.Ka.04496/A4/2000 dated 15. 2000, 1st Respondent has asked the 4th Respondent to terminate the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 15. 2000 and stop claiming salary from 15. 2000 onwards. The said order is in consonance with the direction of the UGC and therefore, the same cannot be assailed as arbitrary and illegal. 14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn Courts attention to the amended regulations of U.G.C. dated 16. 2006. As per the amended regulations, candidates having M.Phil degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for U.G. level teaching. 3rd 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 October 2003. Degree certificate of Master of Philosophy was produced for perusal of the court. When the Petitioner is qualified in M.Phil Computer Science, he is qualified as per the amended regulations and therefore, Petitioners service cannot be terminated. 15. Learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent has submitted that Petitioner having not challenged the conditions at the earlier point and that he 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 3rd Respondent further submitted that as per UGC guidelines when the Petitioner was not qualified with prescribed qualifications at the relevant time, subsequent qualification acquired by him cannot be taken note of so as to give benefit of subsequent amendments. 16. Contention that the Petitioner cannot be given benefit of amendment does not merit acceptance. The learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent further submitted that as per UGC guidelines when the Petitioner was not qualified with prescribed qualifications at the relevant time, subsequent qualification acquired by him cannot be taken note of so as to give benefit of subsequent amendments. 16. Contention that the Petitioner cannot be given benefit of amendment does not merit acceptance. It is no doubt true that right of parties crystallized on the date of filing of Writ Petition. However, court has power to take note of subsequent events. 17. In the result, "It is held that the Syndicate resolution dated 11. 1999 cannot be challenged. "Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.04496/A4/2000 dated 15. 2000 and the order disallowing Petitioners salary after 15. 2000 and termination order issued by the 4th Respondent College are quashed and the Writ Petition is partly allowed. "The Petitioner shall be entitled to the salary from 15. 2000. No costs.