Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2395 (ALL)

Manish Kumar Sonkar v. State Of U. P.

2018-11-26

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. Short issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to what is the discipline/subject in which a candidate must pass National Eligibility Test (NET), in order to be eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology, advertised by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') vide Advertisement No.46. 2. The facts necessary for proper appreciation of issue, therefore, is taken up, first. Large number of vacancies, in different subjects, were advertised by the Commission including Zoology. The advertisement specified qualifications required for the post in question, which is extracted hereinafter:- ^^------------mRre 'kSf{kd vfHkys[k ds lkFk lqlaxr fo"k; esa LukrdksRrj Lrj ij 55 Áfr'kr ÁkIrkad ¼vFkok oxZ eki esa lerqY; xszM tgka dgha xszfM+x flLVe dk vuqlj.k fd;k tkrk gks½A ------------------------------- mi;qZDr ¼d½] ¼[k½¼1½ ,oa ¼x½¼1½ Js.kh esa vflLVsUV ÁksQslj ds :i esa p;u gsrq jk"Vªh; ik=rk ijh{kk ¼usV½ vFkok mŒÁŒ jkT; Lrjh; ik=rk ijh{kk vFkok fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx }kjk ÁR;kfir jkT; Lrjh; ik=rk ijh{kk ¼LysV½ vfuok;Z vgZrk ekuh tk;sxhA ,sls vH;FkhZ ftudks lacaf/kr fo"k; esa MhŒfQyŒ@ihŒ,pŒMhŒ mikf/k ;wŒthŒlhŒ & fofu;ekoyh 2009 ds 'krksZ ds vuqlkj ÁkIr gqbZ gS] mUgas usV@LysV@lsV dh vfuok;Z U;wure vgZrk ls NwV jgsxhA** 3. The qualification specified in the advertisement is in consonance with the qualification laid down in UGC Regulations, 2010. Regulation 4.4.0 of the Regulations of 2010, prescribing qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor is also extracted hereinafter:- "4.4.0 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 4.4.1. Arts, Humanities, Sciences, Social Sciences, Commerce, Education, Languages, Law, Journalism and Mass Communication i. Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master's Degree level in a relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university. ii. Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET. iii. ii. Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET. iii. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (I) and (ii) to this Clause 4.4.1, 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 of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. iv. NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted." 4. The advertisement as also the UGC Regulations, by necessary inference mandates that the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test, accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET in relevant discipline/subject, in order to be eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. 5. It is admitted to the counsel for the parties that Zoology is not a subject in which NET examination is conducted. CSIR-UGC NET Examination for Science Stream is usually conducted by CSIR in the following fields:- (i). Chemical Sciences (ii). Arts Sciences (iii). Life Sciences (iv). Mathematical Sciences (v). Physical Sciences 6. The Court is apprised that NET in Life Sciences has been treated hitherto to be the relevant discipline for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology. No challenge is thus laid to selection of candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology, who have obtained NET in Life Sciences. 7. Certain doubts, however, appear to have been raised with regard to the determination of subject or interdisciplinary nature of subject in which NET qualification had to be obtained by the candidate for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology, as also in some other subjects. The Commission, accordingly, sought clarification from the University Grants Commission in that regard. The University Grants Commission responded to the query of the Commission vide its communication dated 16.4.2014, in following words:- "Subject: Minimum qualification for the appointment of Assistant Professor-regarding. Sir With reference to your letters Nos. The Commission, accordingly, sought clarification from the University Grants Commission in that regard. The University Grants Commission responded to the query of the Commission vide its communication dated 16.4.2014, in following words:- "Subject: Minimum qualification for the appointment of Assistant Professor-regarding. Sir With reference to your letters Nos. mŒf'kŒ vk;ksx@lh 516-515(3) dated 21st February, 2014 and No. 592 & 594 dated 24th March 2014 and C-501/508 dated 7th April 2014, on the subject cited above and the queries raised by you, the point-wise reply is as under: Queries Answer (i) Whether the Good Academic Record will also be taken into consideration while filling the post of Assistant Professor, B.Ed. and M.Ed. in terms of the Clause 4.4.7 of UGC Regulations 2010. The UGC Regulations under the clause 3.3.0 mention the minimum requirement of qualifications for the teaching posts such as Assistant Professor, as Good Academic Record, 55% marks at Master's level and qualifying in the NET/SET/SLET or Ph.D as per UGC Regulation (Minimum Standard and procedure for the award of M. Phil/Ph.D Degree), 2009. Therefore, Good Academic Record shall also be mandatory taken into account for the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education, B.Ed and M.Ed. (ii) Whether there is any relaxation from NET/SET/SLET or Ph.D. for these poses UGC conducts NET in Physical Education and Education. Therefore, the NET/SET/SLET shall also be taken as a mandatory condition for filling up of these posts as provided under clause 3.3.1 of UGC Regulations, 2010. UGC Regulations, 2010 contain the qualifications for M.P.Ed. under the clause. Than, what will be the qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor to teach B.P.Ed. The requirement of minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor to teach B.P.Ed shall not be less than the minimum qualifications prescribed under the above mentioned clause 4.4.7 of the UGC Regulation 2010. Further, it is clarified that the issue of concerned subject/relevance of subject or interdisciplinary nature of subject is required to be decided by the Appointing Authority with the help of subject experts in the concerned/related field and as per their teaching requirements. Further, as per provisions of UGC Regulations, 2010, the candidates who have acquired their Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the UGC (Minimum Standard and Procedure for the award of M. Phil/Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 are exempted from the requirement of NET/SET/SLET for the appointment of Assistant Professor and equivalent." 8. Further, as per provisions of UGC Regulations, 2010, the candidates who have acquired their Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the UGC (Minimum Standard and Procedure for the award of M. Phil/Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 are exempted from the requirement of NET/SET/SLET for the appointment of Assistant Professor and equivalent." 8. In view of the clarification received from the University Grants Commission, the Commission issued the following press note on 19.4.2014:- ^^,rn~}kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vk;ksx ds foKkiu la[;k&46 ds vUrxZr foKkfIr vflLVsaV ÁksQslj ds in ij p;u ls lEcaf/kr vUr%lEc) fo"k;ksa ds lEcU/k esa vkosndksa }kjk fHkUu&fHkUu Á'u fyf[kr :i esa iwNs tk jgs gSa tks ;wŒthŒlhŒ fofu;ekoyh&2010 esa Li"V ugha gS vkSj mDr ls lEcaf/kr fcUnq Li"V u gksus ds dkj.k vgZ@vugZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dh NaVuh esa vk;ksx dks Hkh dfBukb;ksa dk lkeuk djuk iM jgk gS ftls n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vk;ksx }kjk ;wŒthŒlhŒ ls Li"V fn'kk&funsZ'k@ekxZ&n'kZu ekaxk x;k FkkA ;wŒthŒlhŒ ds i=kad la[;k ,Q&10&1@2012 ¼ihŒ,lŒ½ fnukad&16 vÁSy] 2014 }kjk vk;ksx dks ekxZn'kZu ÁkIr gks x;k gSA vkosndksa dh leL;kvksa ,oa vUr%lEc) fo"k;h tfVyrkvksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vk;ksx dh cSBd }kjk loZlEefr ls fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqikyu esa vkuykbu vkosnu djus dh vafre frfFk 30-04-2014 rd c<+k;h tkrh gSA mDr frfFk ds i'pkr~ u rks vkuykbu iathdj.k gksxk] u pkyku tujsV gksxk u cSad esa vkosnu 'kqYd tek gksxk vkSj u gh vkosnu&i= viyksM fd;k x;k tk;sxkA** 9. A subsequent notice was also issued by the Commission on 22nd April, 2014, in that very regard which is also reproduced:- ^^vUr%lEc) fo"k; ds laca/k esa egRoiw.kZ lwpuk ,rn~}kjk foKkiu la[;k&46 ds vUrxZr fofHkUu vUr% lEc) fo"k;ksa esa vkosnu gsrq bPNqd vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn os vUr%lEc) fo"k;ksa ds vUrxZr lacaf/kr fo"k;ksa ds vflLVsUV ÁksQslj in gsrq vkosnu djuk pkgrs gS rks os fnukad 30-04-2014 rd vkuykbu vkosnu dj ldrs gS ijUrq mudh vgZrk dk vk;ksx }kjk xfBr fo"k; & fo'ks"kK lfefr ds fu.kZ; ij fuHkZj djsxkA fo"k; fo'ks"kK lfefr }kjk mUgsa vgZ ekus tkus ij gh mudk vkosnu Lohdkj dj vfxze dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA vkosnu laca/kh lwpuk vk;ksx dh foojf.kdk@funsZf'kdk esa nh x;h gS] ftls vk;ksx dh csolkbV www.uphesc.org ij ns[kk tk ldrk gSA** 10. In view of the clarification issued by the Commission, applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology and other subjects were entertained by the Commission without examining as to whether the candidate has passed NET examination in relevant discipline/subject. Candidates, accordingly, made applications for appointment to the posts notified vide Advertisement No.46, and all such applications were duly entertained. No candidate has come forward with the grievance that he had been prevented from applying to the post on account of non-determination of relevant discipline/subject in which NET had to be cleared. 11. The Commission has proceeded with the task of conducting written examination for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology. The issue of determining subject/interdisciplinary subject in which NET had to be cleared was kept pending. Ultimately an expert committee is said to have been constituted consisting of a member of the Commission and two subject experts i.e. a faculty from Lucknow University and the Head of Zoology Department, Bareilly College, Bareilly. The issue of determining subject/interdisciplinary subject in which NET had to be cleared was kept pending. Ultimately an expert committee is said to have been constituted consisting of a member of the Commission and two subject experts i.e. a faculty from Lucknow University and the Head of Zoology Department, Bareilly College, Bareilly. Their report dated 8th August, 2018 has been brought before the Court, which reads as under:- ^^Á'uxr fo"k; ij lE;d :i ls fopkj djus ds i'pkr ;g Li"V gS fd vH;FkhZ us Ákf.k foKku esa ,eŒ,lŒlhŒ dh mikf/k ÁkIr dh gS rFkk i;kZoj.k foKku esa usV dh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh gS] tks Ákf.k foKku ls vUr%lEc) fo"k; gSA blds vykok ;wŒthŒlhŒ us Hkh i;kZoj.k foKku dks Ákf.k foKku dk vUr%lEcU/k fo"k; ekurs gq, vH;FkhZ dks usV ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus dh vuqefr nh gSA blfy, vH;FkhZ dks Ákf.k foKku ds lgk;d vkpk;Z ds lk{kkRdkj esa 'kkfey gksus dh vuqefr fn;k tkuk pkfg,A** Based upon the aforesaid report, the Commission in its 990th Meeting dated 10.8.2018 has resolved as under:- ^^990-3 foKkiu la[;k&46 esa foKkfir lgk;d vkpk;Z Ákf.k foKku ds vUr%lEc) fo"k; ds vUrxZr lfefr }kjk nh x;h fjiksVZ fnukad 08-08-2018 ^^Á'uxr fo"k; ij lE;d :i ls fopkj djus ds i'pkr ;g Li"V gS fd vH;FkhZ us Ákf.k foKku esa ,eŒ,lŒlhŒ dh mikf/k ÁkIr dh gS rFkk i;kZoj.k foKku esa usV dh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh gS] tks Ákf.k foKku ls vUr%lEc) fo"k; gSA blds vykok ;wŒthŒlhŒ us Hkh i;kZoj.k foKku dks Ákf.k foKku dk vUr%lEc) fo"k; ekurs gq, vH;FkhZ dks usV ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus dh vuqefr nh gSA blfy, vH;FkhZ dks Ákf.k foKku ds lgk;d vkpk;Z ds lk{kkRdkj esa 'kkfey gksus dh vuqefr fn;k tkuk pkfg,^^ ds vk/kkj ij Ákf.k foKku fo"k; esa ;wŒthŒlhŒ }kjk lapkfyr usV dh ijh{kk i;kZoj.k foKku esa mRrh.kZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lfEefyr fd;s tkus dh dk;ksZRrj Lohd`fr Ánku dh x;hA rn~uqlkj lfpo dks vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA** A consequent press note has also been issued on 10th August, 2018, which reads as under:- ^^vk;ksx dh cSBd la[;k 990 fnukad 10 vxLr] 2018 }kjk foKkiu la[;k&46 esa foKkfir lgk;d vkpk;Z ¼vflLVsaV ÁksQslj½ jlk;u foKku fo"k; esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn esa ;ksftr okn la[;k&17023@2018 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 09-08-2018 ds vuqikyu esa lkekU; oxZ dk 01 ¼,d½ in jksdrs gq, 'ks"k 137 ¼68 lkekU;] 34 vU; fiNMk oxZ] 35 vuqlwfpr tkfr½ inksa dk p;u ifj.kke ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus dk loZlEefr ls vk;ksx }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k lkFk gh lgk;d vkpk;Z] Ákf.k foKku fo"k; esa ;wŒthŒlhŒ }kjk lapkfyr usV dh ijh{kk i;kZoj.k foKku esa mRrh.kZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lk{kkRdkj esa lfEefyr fd;s tkus dh dk;ksZRrj Lohd`fr Ánku dh x;hA p;u ifj.kke vk;ksx ds iksVZy www.uphesconline.in ij miyC/k gSA lEcaf/kr vH;FkhZ vius vad ,d lIrkg ckn vk;ksx iksVZy ij ns[k ldrs gSaA** 12. The final result thereafter has been published by the Commission on 25th August, 2018, selecting 106 Assistant Professors in Zoology for appointment in different aided colleges, throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh. It includes three candidates who have passed NET in Environmental Sciences. Their inclusion in the select list is the immediate cause giving rise to filing of the present writ petition. 13. The petitioner Manish Kumar Sonkar is a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category and is placed at Serial No.24 of the waiting list. He, however, claims to be at Serial No.2 in the waiting list prepared for Scheduled Caste category candidates. Respondent no.4 i.e. Smt. Rajni Singh has been selected as an Assistant Professor in Zoology in Scheduled Caste category. She has cleared NET in Environmental Sciences. The grievance of the petitioner is that NET in Environmental Sciences was not the relevant subject or interdisciplinary subject for Zoology, and therefore, the inclusion of candidates, who have cleared NET in Environmental Sciences, has vitiated the result published by the Commission for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology. Following prayers are thus made in this writ petition:- "(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the press notification issued by UP Higher Education Service Commission dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). (ii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to revise the select list dated 25.08.2018 for the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology in pursuance to advertisement no.46 after excluding there from of such candidate who have been treated to be eligibility on the basis of National Eligibility Test certificate awarded by University Grants Commission in the subject of Environmental Science within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court." 14. It is urged on behalf of petitioner that NET in Life Sciences alone is the subject required to be cleared for enabling a candidate to be selected on the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology, and that the Commission has erred in offering appointment to the candidates who have cleared NET in Environmental Sciences. Argument is that issue of qualification ought to have been determined before proceeding with the recruitment itself, and the action of Commission is including NET in Environmental Sciences, much after holding of the written examination etc., was clearly a course impermissible in law. Argument is that issue of qualification ought to have been determined before proceeding with the recruitment itself, and the action of Commission is including NET in Environmental Sciences, much after holding of the written examination etc., was clearly a course impermissible in law. The manner in which the expert committee has been constituted and its opinion is obtained and relied upon for including NET in Environmental Sciences is also questioned on the ground that the Commission had acted in haste and without due deliberations. Additionally, it is argued that in terms of the decision taken by the University Grants Commission the relevance of subject in NET was required to be decided only by the State Government, in accordance with law, and the Commission lacked any jurisdiction to do so. 15. Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shantanu Khare for the petitioner also questions the report of the expert committee on the ground that it contains factual inconsistency and cannot be treated to be a fair expression of opinion by the experts, on relevant aspects. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Prakash Chand Meena and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 484 to contend that equivalence of qualification cannot be determined after commencement of the selection process. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, reported in 1995 (6) SCC 1 , to contend that the Commission had no power to determine the equivalence of subject in which NET was to be compulsorily required, much after the examination process had progressed. 16. Sri B.N. Singh has appeared for the respondent Commission, while Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vineet Kumar Singh has appeared for the impleaded respondent, who has been selected pursuant to advertisement. Sri R.P. Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has been heard on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director of Higher Education. It is argued for the respondents that the issue of eligibility has rightly been considered by the Commission on the basis of relevant materials, in the form of opinion of experts, and no interference in the matter is warranted. It is argued for the respondents that the issue of eligibility has rightly been considered by the Commission on the basis of relevant materials, in the form of opinion of experts, and no interference in the matter is warranted. It is also submitted that the question raised at the instance of petitioner is not liable to be examined, inasmuch as petitioner otherwise would not be benefited, even if candidates with Environmental Sciences in NET examination are excluded, inasmuch as petitioner is placed at Serial No.24 of the waiting list. On behalf of respondents, reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Basavalah Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others (2010) 8 SCC 372 to contend that the opinion of experts, which has been relied upon by the Commission for taking the decision is not required to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For similar proposition reliance is also placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Hirdesh Kumar & Another Vs. State of U.P. and others, passed in Writ Petition No. 53213 of 2005. It is then contended that petitioner had never objected to inclusion of Environmental Sciences for NET qualification, and it is only after final result has been published by the Commission, in which he is not included that a grievance is raised, which would not be maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 357 . It is in light of these rival submissions that the issue needs to be resolved. 17. The Commission has been established by the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 3 of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1980') for selecting teachers for appointment to Degree Colleges or Postgraduate Degree Colleges affiliated to the Universities established under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1973'). The task of selection was initially assigned to selection committee constituted under Section 31 of the Act of 1973, but it got assigned to the Commission after the Act of 1980 came into being. The task of selection was initially assigned to selection committee constituted under Section 31 of the Act of 1973, but it got assigned to the Commission after the Act of 1980 came into being. It is not disputed that all selections to the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) was made in the past from the candidates who had cleared NET in Life Sciences. The relevance of discipline in NET raised, however, was not resolved at the initial stage, and has been determined only now. 18. The issue of jurisdiction raised on behalf of the petitioner is taken up for consideration at the outset. It is submitted that the Commission is not the competent body to decide subject/interdisciplinary nature of subject in the statutory scheme, and only the UGC or the State Government could determine relevance of subject in NET. 19. The procedure for conduct of recruitment by the Commission is laid down in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 2014, framed under Section 31 of the Act of 1980. Regulation 3 of the Regulations of 2014 which provides for qualification for appointment as teacher is reproduced hereinafter:- "3. The minimum qualification for appointment a teacher shall be as prescribed by University Grant Commission and State Government time to time." 20. Requirement of clearing NET examination has been made compulsory under the UGC Regulations of 2010. The Regulations, however, do not specify the subject in which NET qualification has to be obtained. The UGC in its communication sent to the Commission has clearly observed that issue of subject/relevance of subject or interdisciplinary nature of subject is required to be decided by the appointing authority with the help of subject experts, in the concerned/related field, and as per the teaching requirements. Learned counsel for the respondents have taken the Court through the statutory scheme, at length, in order to submit that the task of appointing authority virtually stands assigned to the Commission under the Act. It is also urged that appointing authority is the Committee of Management of the institution concerned and its opinion, for the determination of issue, would render the scheme itself unworkable inasmuch as different committees may take different opinion in the matter and therefore it would be the Commission alone which had to decide the issue. 21. It is also urged that appointing authority is the Committee of Management of the institution concerned and its opinion, for the determination of issue, would render the scheme itself unworkable inasmuch as different committees may take different opinion in the matter and therefore it would be the Commission alone which had to decide the issue. 21. All such arguments of respondents do not merit acceptance, for the simple reason that the field stands occupied by the Regulations of 2014 wherein such function is not assigned to Commission. Regulation 2(l) defines educational qualification in following terms:- "2(l) "Educational Qualification" means the qualification prescribed by the University Grant Commission and State Government time to time." Similarly Regulation 3 also provides that minimum qualification for appointment shall be such as is prescribed by University Grants Commission and State Government, time to time. 22. The UGC has clearly opined that issue of relevance of subject or interdisciplinary nature of subject is required to be decided by the appointing authority with the help of subject experts. The Commission in such circumstances was required to have transmitted the opinion of experts received by it to the State Government, for a decision to be taken by competent body i.e. the State Government. The Regulations of 2014 do not vest jurisdiction in the Commission to determine the educational qualifications. Relevance of subject or interdisciplinary nature of subject would otherwise be a part of educational qualification and had to be decided by the State Government. 23. Although wide powers are conferred upon the Commission in the matter relating to recruitment of teachers, including residuary powers under Regulation 10, but so far as prescribing of minimum qualification is concerned the jurisdiction lies with the UGC or the State Government only. The Commission is not assigned jurisdiction, in that regard, under the Regulations of 2014. 24. Since the first argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner relating to jurisdiction itself is accepted, the Court is not required to deal with other submissions raised on behalf of the parties. The only other argument that requires determination is regarding the stage at which such determination could be made, and whether the determination of relevance of subject, at this stage, would be impermissible or would vitiate the selection itself. 25. The qualification prescribed under the UGC Regulations is of obtaining the NET qualification. The only other argument that requires determination is regarding the stage at which such determination could be made, and whether the determination of relevance of subject, at this stage, would be impermissible or would vitiate the selection itself. 25. The qualification prescribed under the UGC Regulations is of obtaining the NET qualification. The regulations do not specify the discipline/subject in which NET qualification has to be obtained by a candidate for applying for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology. It remained a grey area and had to be clarified by the competent authority, in accordance with law. The Commission has clearly disclosed this position to all prospective candidates and no one has come with the grievance that he has been prevented from applying for appointment, on such count. The judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu (supra), relied upon by Sri Khare would not be of much help to the petitioner for challenging the recruitment itself, inasmuch as the selection committee in the facts of that case (in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu) had proceeded to determine the standards for making selection, which was not assigned to it and was otherwise a legislative act. This is not the case here. The qualification stands specified under the UGC Regulations. It is only the relevance of discipline of a particular subject which alone needs determination. Such exercise does not fall within the legislative field and therefore the competent authority can always take a decision as per the statutory scheme, particularly when no prejudice is otherwise caused to anyone. Petitioner moreover has never objected to the arrangement made by the Commission to allow every one to apply for the post, while leaving the relevance of subject to be determined later. In view of the law settled the petitioner having accepted the position cannot be permitted to question the arrangement now, on the ground that it ought to have been determined earlier. The judgment of the Apex Court in Prakash Chand Meena (supra) also would not be attracted in the facts of the present case inasmuch as the issue is not of change in the recruitment norms, but merely of determining the relevance of subject for NET qualification. The selection is not shown to have been vitiated for any inherent violation of statutory norms. The selection is not shown to have been vitiated for any inherent violation of statutory norms. The issue of relevance of subject in NET can still be decided by the competent body, without causing prejudice to anyone. 26. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that the Commission is not justified in including NET in Environmental Sciences as one of the disciplines for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology, at its own level. The inclusion of names of candidates with such qualification in the select list also cannot be approved of, for the reason that it was beyond the jurisdiction of Commission to do so. Consequently, this writ petition stands disposed of by issuing following directions:- (i). The Commission shall forthwith recommend the names of selected candidates notified by it on 25.8.2018, for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology, who have secured NET in Life Sciences. Their claim for appointment shall be processed, in accordance with law. (ii). The Commission shall forward the opinion of experts, obtained by it on the relevance of NET in Environmental Sciences, for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology, to the State Government within four weeks from today. (iii). The State Government shall take an appropriate decision on the relevance of NET in Environmental Sciences for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology, in light of the reply received from UGC on 16th April, 2014 and in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Regulations of 2014, within a further period of six weeks, thereafter. (iv). Based upon the decision to be taken by the State Government, as indicated above, claim of selection to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology would be considered by the Commission of candidates passing NET in Environmental Sciences. Till such time as the State Government takes a decision, regarding relevance of subject in NET examination, the candidature of selected candidates who have cleared NET in Environmental Sciences would be kept pending and shall abide by the decision to be taken by the State Government. (v). No order as to costs.