JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. Heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. Claiming to have a common grievance, 25 writ petitioners have joined hands to file the instant writ petition. 3. Brief facts of the case as presented by the petitioners is that they were appointed as Lecturer/Assistant Professors between 01.06.1986 to 13.03.1996 through the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) under the Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Nagaland. Thereafter, after serving for a number of years, they were placed in the selection grade/Associate Professor. Be it stated herein that in due course of time, the post of Lecturer was re-designated as Assistant Professor and Senior Grade Lecturers as Associate Professors. 4. According to the petitioners, when they entered into their respective services, the eligibility criteria was inter alia a Masters Degree with minimum 55% marks. The statutory rules at the time of their entry into service was the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules, 1990 (Rules of 1990) which was subsequently repealed by the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules, 2003 (Rules of 2003). Under the Rules of 1990 and the Rules of 2003, the eligibility criteria for appointment/recruitment to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor remained the same. The Rules of 2003 was then repealed by the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules, 2015 (Rules of 2015) which came into force from the date of its publication in the Nagaland Gazette i.e., 10.06.2015. As per the Rules of 2015, the post of Associate Professor is the feeder post for promotion/placement to the grade of Professor/Principal and the essential qualification for such promotion/placement is Ph.D with a minimum service of 3 (three) years at Stage-4. According to the petitioners, they were all appointed under the Rules of 1990 & 2003 and they have the accrued and vested right to be considered for promotion/placement to the higher post but their rights have been adversely affected with the adoption of the Rules of 2015. 5. The petitioners contend that a few Associate Professors approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 65(K)/2015 contending inter alia that they were superseded by their juniors and though they did not possess Ph.D, the Rules should be relaxed and they should be considered for promotion for placement/promotion to the post of Principal. 5. The petitioners contend that a few Associate Professors approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 65(K)/2015 contending inter alia that they were superseded by their juniors and though they did not possess Ph.D, the Rules should be relaxed and they should be considered for promotion for placement/promotion to the post of Principal. The writ petition was disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated 25.04.2016 wherein, it was held that as the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification as prescribed by the Rules of 2015, they are not entitled to any relief. Against the Judgment & Order, the State Government filed Civil Review Petition No. 5(K)/2016 contending that as there was shortage of Principals under the Department of Higher Education, it was not possible to process the case of eligible teachers for promotion without Principals. Taking this into account, this Court allowed the Review Petition by Order dated 06.03.2017. Subsequently, the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5(K)/2016 were promoted as Principals. According to the petitioners, except for two of the promotees, the rest have already retired on superannuation. 6. The petitioners contend that in the Department of Higher Education, there are as many as 46 Associate Professors without Ph.D. All of them, including the petitioners were appointed prior to the coming into force of the Rules of 2015. Further, the practice of the Department of not making Ph.D an essential qualification for recruitment can be ascertained from the advertisement floated on 13.11.2019 by the NPSC. According to the petitioners, a perusal of the advertisement would show that candidates possessing Master Degree in the relevant subject with at least 55% marks are eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professor. They contend that at the time of their initial appointment, they were assured that their qualification would not be a bar for them to be considered for upward progression in their service careers. Such assurance was key to their acceptance of the employment advertised and offered. Lately, the petitioners came to learn that an Advertisement dated 04.09.2019 for the post of Principal has been published by the Directorate of Higher Education and it does not mention the number of vacancies but the essential qualification said to be necessary is as per the Rules of 2015. Lately, the petitioners came to learn that an Advertisement dated 04.09.2019 for the post of Principal has been published by the Directorate of Higher Education and it does not mention the number of vacancies but the essential qualification said to be necessary is as per the Rules of 2015. The petitioners, therefore, submitted a representation on 09.09.2019 stating that they have been appointed prior to the coming into force of Rules of 2015 and therefore, their right to be considered for promotion should be protected. However, their representation to the respondent authorities was neither considered nor disposed and therefore, they are before this Court. 7. Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel submits that all the petitioners were appointed before the coming into force of Rules of 2015 which prescribes for having Ph.D in order to be considered for promotion/placement to the post of Professor/Principal. He submits that the Rules of 2015 are retrospective in operation and the same has taken away the vested rights of the petitioners. The Rules of 2015 does not provide any promotional avenues to those appointed prior to the enactment of the Rules such as the writ petitioners. He submits that the Rules of 2015 cannot withstand the test of reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India vis-à-vis the petitioners. He submits that it provides for impossible objects and therefore are not workable. This fact can be appreciated from the Civil Review Petition No. 5(K)/2016 filed by the State respondents seeking review of the Judgment & Order dated 25.04.2016 passed in WP(C) No. 65(K)/2016. By filing the review petition, the State respondents sought relaxation of the relevant Rules for filling up the post of Principal. The learned counsel therefore, submits that since the are not workable and therefore, the relevant provision of the Rules should be read down by this Court so that the vested rights of the petitioners to be considered for further promotion are not affected. In this connection, he relies upon the case of B.S Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 1988 Suppl. SCC 524 and PD Aggarwal & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (1987) 3 SCC 622 . 8. The learned counsel also submits that since the petitioners are already experienced teachers, the object and spirit of the UGC norms is already fulfilled. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 1988 Suppl. SCC 524 and PD Aggarwal & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (1987) 3 SCC 622 . 8. The learned counsel also submits that since the petitioners are already experienced teachers, the object and spirit of the UGC norms is already fulfilled. Referring to the affidavit of the State respondents filed on 09.05.2022, he further submits that none of the teachers mentioned in the said affidavit fulfill the criteria under the Rules of 2015 in order to be promoted as Professor. 9. The learned counsel submits that Rule 9(ix), (x) & (xii) of Rules of 2016 has to be read with Schedule-II of the same Rules. A perusal of the Schedule-II would show that the qualification criteria prescribed has been increased. He submits that the schedule to an Act cannot control or prevail against the expressed enactment and in case of any inconsistency between the Schedule and the enactment, the enactment is to prevail and if any part of the Schedule cannot be made to correspond, it must yield to the Act. In case of any conflict between the body of the Act and the Schedule, the former prevails. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of M/s Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, (1989) 4 SCC 378 . 10. Mr. A. Zhimomi further submits that Rule 28 of Rules of 2015 provides for the power of the Governor to relax the application of any Rule where undue hardship is likely to be caused to any person by the application of the Rules for good and sufficient reason without prejudice to the interest of any other members of the service. He submits that considering the length of service rendered by the petitioners and the hardship created by the application of the Rules of 2015 for further promotion, the competent authority can always invoke the relaxation clause to resolve the grievances of the petitioners. The same having not been done, Court may direct the respondent authorities to invoke the relaxation clause. To support his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of J.C. Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1990)2 SCC 189 . 11. Ms. The same having not been done, Court may direct the respondent authorities to invoke the relaxation clause. To support his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of J.C. Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1990)2 SCC 189 . 11. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the UGC Guidelines was adopted by the State Government in the Department of Higher & Technical Education vide Notification dated 24.08.2010 and therefore, since the year 2010, the petitioners were aware about the qualification prescribed by the UGC i.e. Ph.D for further promotion or placement as Professor/Principal. In fact, some of the petitioners were given study leave for pursuing and obtaining Ph.D degree but they failed to secure the Doctorate degree. The learned State counsel submits that due to non-impleadment of the UGC as a party respondent, the writ petition is also not maintainable for non-joinder of the necessary parties. Further, if those who had already obtained Ph.D Degree are not made a party to the case, all the hard work put in by those who have secured the Doctorate degree will only be in vain. She submits that the UGC norms otherwise insists for Ph.D Degree for maintaining higher standard in imparting higher education and the same being a reasonable classification, Article 14 of the Constitution of India will not be attracted. In support of her submission, she relies upon the decision of the Apex Court (3 Judges Bench) in Prof. Yashpal & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 420 and also Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Assn. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 399 . 12. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned State counsel submits that in the given facts of the instant case, the exemption in applying UGC norms as sought by the petitioners is not called for and cannot be accepted. It does not even attract the principles of legitimate expectation as claimed by them. In this connection, she relies upon the case of P. Suseela & Ors. vs. University Grants Commission & Ors., (2015) 8 SCC 129 . She further submits that mere hardship alleged by the petitioners for being considered for further promotion is not sufficient to strike down the Service Rules. In this connection, she relies upon the case of P. Suseela & Ors. vs. University Grants Commission & Ors., (2015) 8 SCC 129 . She further submits that mere hardship alleged by the petitioners for being considered for further promotion is not sufficient to strike down the Service Rules. In fact, the petitioners cannot claim that the service condition and the Service Rules should remain the same for all time to come. In support of her submission, she relies upon the case of Prafulla Kumar Das & Ors. vs. State of Orissa & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 614 and K.A Nagamani vs. Indian Airlines & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 515 . 13. Ms. V. Suokhrie submits that the petitioners have also not challenged the notification by which the UGC norms have been adopted and therefore, the basic notification having not been challenged, the writ petition is not maintainable even on this ground. In support of her contention, she relies upon the case of Edukanti Kistamma & Ors. vs. S.Venkatareddy & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 756 . 14. We have heard the learned counsels for the rival parties and we have also perused the materials available on record. 15. As can be seen, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to declare Rule 9 (viii) & Rule 11 (ii), along with the corresponding entry in Schedule-II of the Rules of 2015 to be ultraviresand unconstitutional. One of the main reason for making such a prayer is that the petitioners claim that they were all appointed prior to the framing of the Rules of 2015 and that they have a vested right to be considered in terms of the Rules existing prior to the Rules of 2015. It may further be noticed that as per Rule 9 (viii), in order to be further promoted from the post of Associate Professor to the post of Professor or Principal, one has to possess Ph.D Degree subject to; (a) satisfying the required credit points as per API based PBAS Methodology provided in the UGC Regulations and (b) an assessment by a duly constituted screening committee for the direct recruitment of Professor. Rule 11(ii) provides that no one shall be eligible to be appointed, promoted, or designated as Professor unless he or she possesses a Ph.D and satisfies other academic conditions as laid down by the UGC from time to time. Rule 11(ii) provides that no one shall be eligible to be appointed, promoted, or designated as Professor unless he or she possesses a Ph.D and satisfies other academic conditions as laid down by the UGC from time to time. This shall however, not affect those who are already designated as Professor. 16. Schedule-II of the Rules of 2015 which corresponds to Rule 6(ii) of the same Rules provides that Professors in Colleges can be selected from amongst Associate Professors with Ph.D Degrees who have completed 3 years of service in Stage-4. The minimum yearly/cumulative API scores using the PBAS scoring performa as per the norms provided in the Annexure-3 to Schedule-II. A teacher may combine two assessment periods in Stage-2 & 3 to achieve the minimum API scores, if required. A minimum of 5 publications since the period the Teacher is placed in Stage-3. Rule 2(ii) of the Rules of 2015 provides that the Rules shall come into force with effect from the date of publication in the Nagaland Gazette. The Rules were published in the Nagaland Gazette on 10.03.2015 and therefore, the same is the effective date. From a perusal of the Rules of 2015, it is seen that having a Ph.D Degree is a must for being considered for placement/promotion as Professor only and that the same is not a requirement for being appointed as Assistant Professor or being designated as Associate Professor. As already stated herein above, Rule 11(ii) provides that possessing the Ph.D Degree and other academic conditions laid down by the UGC from time to time will not affect those who are already designated as Professors thereby, meaning that the application of the Rules of 2015 is prospective. 17. The admitted position is that the Universities Grant Commission (Minimum Qualifications For Appointment Of Teachers And Other Academic Staff In Universities And Colleges And Other Measures For The Maintenance Of Standards In Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 was adopted by the Govt. of Nagaland in the Department of Higher Technical Education with the issuance of the Notification dated 24.08.2010. As the name of UGC Regulation, 2010 would suggest, the same has been prescribed as a measure for maintenance of standards in higher education in Universities and Colleges. The UGC Regulations having been adopted on 24.08.2010 has been in existence for quite some time and it is not as if the same has been introduced only recently. As the name of UGC Regulation, 2010 would suggest, the same has been prescribed as a measure for maintenance of standards in higher education in Universities and Colleges. The UGC Regulations having been adopted on 24.08.2010 has been in existence for quite some time and it is not as if the same has been introduced only recently. In other words, the petitioners admittedly were aware of the introduction of the UGC norms way back in the year 2010 and that in order to be placed/promoted as Professor, obtaining Ph.D Degree is a must and therefore, some of them in fact had applied for study leave to obtain Ph.D Degree. Some of those who had taken study leave may have also completed and obtained Ph.D Degree but the same is not brought to the notice of this Court. Be that as it may, the prayer of the petitioners is to declare some of the provisions of the Rules of 2015 as ultraviresand unconstitutional as already indicated in the preceding paragraphs. The fact remains that the Rules of 2015 has been framed in the exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in line with the UGC Regulations of 2010. Rule 2(iii) also provides that the Rules shall be subject to changes as per notifications, circulars and regulations issued by the UGC and adopted by the State Government from time to time. The petitioners have not challenged the Notification dated 24.08.2010 by which the UGC Regulations were adopted and they have also not made the UGC a party respondent. There is no dispute to the fact that in order to maintain the standards in higher education, the UGC has framed the Regulations which equally apply to all the Institutions and Universities receiving funds from the UGC. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners have tried to impress us that the relevant provisions of the Rules of 2015 are unworkable and that it in fact, infringes upon the vested right of the petitioners. To this submission, we are of the considered view that the framers of the Regulations in order to raise the standards in higher education had prescribed the minimum qualification for Teachers who wish to advance or move up from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor and thereafter, in the grade of Professor. To this submission, we are of the considered view that the framers of the Regulations in order to raise the standards in higher education had prescribed the minimum qualification for Teachers who wish to advance or move up from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor and thereafter, in the grade of Professor. Therefore, when the framers of the Regulation having the expertise have found it appropriate to prescribe for such qualification for Teachers to advance in their career, Court should not replace the same with its own view but leave the same to those who are experts in the field. The interference of this Court would be warranted only when the provisions of the Rules are found to be arbitrary or discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is no dispute that the Rules of 2015 is equally applicable to all those working under the Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Nagaland and it is framed as per the Guidelines of the UGC. The petitioners may have possessed the qualification for the post of Lecturer/Asst. Professor at the time of their entry into the service but that does not mean that their qualification should be accepted as sufficient for being promoted or placed in higher grades. As already stated herein above, the petitioners have not even challenged the adoption of the UGC Regulations in the year 2010 and therefore, the challenge made to the Rules of 2015 which is made in terms of the UGC Regulations in our considered view would be of no consequence. 19. The Apex Court in the case of Edukanti Kistamma & Ors. (supra) in the given facts of that case held that it is a settled legal proposition that challenge to consequential order without challenging the basic order/statutory provision on the basis of which, the order has been passed, cannot be entertained. Therefore, it is a legal obligation on the part of the party to challenge the basic order and only if the same is found to be wrong, consequential orders may be examined. 20. In the case of Prof. Yashpal & Anr. (supra),the Apex Court held that the State Legislature can make an enactment providing for incorporation of Universities under Entry-32 of List-II and also enactments generally for Universities under Entry-25 of List-III. However, the UGC Act has been made with reference to List-I Entry-66. 20. In the case of Prof. Yashpal & Anr. (supra),the Apex Court held that the State Legislature can make an enactment providing for incorporation of Universities under Entry-32 of List-II and also enactments generally for Universities under Entry-25 of List-III. However, the UGC Act has been made with reference to List-I Entry-66. Entry-66 of List-I deals with coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. There can thus be a clash between the powers of the State and that of the Union. Item 63 to 66 of List-I are curved out of the subject of education and in respect of these items, the power to legislate is vested exclusively in the Parliament. The use of the expressions “subject to” in List-III Entry-25 of Seventh Schedule clearly indicates that the legislation in respect of excluded matters cannot be undertaken by the State Legislatures. It is the exclusive responsibility of the Central Government to determine the standards for higher education and the same should not be lowered at the hands of any particular State as it is of great importance to National progress. 21. The Apex Court further held that it was its consistent and settled view that in spite of incorporation of universities as legislative head being in the State List under Entry-32 thereof, the whole gamut of the university, which will include teaching, quality of education being imparted, curriculum, standard of examination and evaluation and also research activity being carried on, will not come within the purview of the State Legislature on account of the specific Entry, i.e. List-I Entry-66, being in the Union list for which Parliament alone is competent. It is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that proper standards are maintained in institutions for higher education or research throughout the country and also uniformity in standards is maintained. 22. The Apex Court in the case of P. Suseela & Ors. (supra)in the facts of that case held that the arguments based on Article 14 equally have to be rejected as it is clear that the object of the directions of the 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. Keeping this object in mind, a minimum eligibility condition of passing the National Eligibility Test is laid down. It is 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 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 and in fact, it is a core function of the UGC to see that such standards do not get diluted. Insofar as, the doctrine of legitimate expectation is concerned, the Apex Court held that a legitimate expectation must always yield to the larger public interest. The larger public interest in that case was nothing less than having highly qualified Assistant Professors to teach in UGC Institutions. 23. The Apex Court in the case of Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Assn. & Ors. (Supra) and observed that Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and confers equal protection of laws. It clearly prohibits the State from denying persons or class of persons equal treatment provided they are equal and are similarly situated. It, however, does not prohibit classification, if otherwise it is legal, valid and reasonable. In the given facts of that case, the classification between in-service employees and retirees in respect of certain benefits was found to be a valid and reasonable classification and therefore, the Apex Court held that the same will not attract Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the present case as well, since the qualification essential for placement to the Professor grade is having Ph.D Degree besides other essentials, the petitioners cannot claim equal treatment. 24. In the case of Prafulla Kumar Das & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court in the given facts of that case held that mere hardship cannot be a valid legislation unless it is held to be suffering from the vice of discrimination or unreasonableness. Paragraph 45 of the said judgment which is found to be relevant may be abstracted hereunder:- “45. In this case, the petitioners seek benefit to which they are not otherwise entitled. The legislature, in our opinion, has the requisite jurisdiction to pass an appropriate legislation which would do justice to its employees. Even otherwise a presumption to that effect has to be drawn. In this case, the petitioners seek benefit to which they are not otherwise entitled. The legislature, in our opinion, has the requisite jurisdiction to pass an appropriate legislation which would do justice to its employees. Even otherwise a presumption to that effect has to be drawn. If a balance is sought to be struck by reason of the impugned legislation, it would not be permissible for this Court to declare it ultra vires only because it may cause some hardship to the petitioners. A mere hardship cannot be a ground for striking down a valid legislation unless it is held to be suffering from the vice of discrimination or unreasonableness. A valid piece of legislation, thus, can be struck down only if it is found to be ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not otherwise. We do not think that in this case, Article 14 of the Constitution is attracted.” 25. In the case of P.U Joshi, Union of India vs. Accountant General, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632, the Apex Court in the given facts of that case at paragraph No. 10 of the Judgment held that there is no right in any employee of the State to claim that Rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new Rules relating to even an existing service. This decision was relied upon by the Apex Court in the case of K.A Nagamani(supra) as well. 26. The case of B.S Yadav & Ors. (supra) and PD Aggarwal & Ors(supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find the same to be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as we have already held that the Rules of 2015 do not operate retrospectively. By relying upon the case of M/s Aphali Pharmaceuticals (supra), the learned counsels for the petitioners has also tried to impress us that the schedule of an Act cannot prevail over the expressed enactment made in the Act. In fact, there is no argument to such proposition. By relying upon the case of M/s Aphali Pharmaceuticals (supra), the learned counsels for the petitioners has also tried to impress us that the schedule of an Act cannot prevail over the expressed enactment made in the Act. In fact, there is no argument to such proposition. In the present case, it may be seen that Schedule-III corresponds to Rule 6(ii) of the Rules of 2015 which provides that the respective quotas reserved for direct recruitment and by promotion, the qualifications and conditions required for direct recruitment and for promotion/placement to various grades of the service shall be as specified in Schedule-II. Therefore, there is no conflict and the Schedule only complements the Rules. 27. The case of MalinKanta Paul (supra) relied upon by the learned counsels for the petitioners is found to be not applicable in the given facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the petitioners cannot be said to have an accrued right to be placed in the Professor grade or Principal without possessing Ph.D Degree and other qualifications prescribed not only by the Rules of 2015 but by the UGC Regulations, 2010 which was adopted by the State on 24.08.2010. 28. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the writ petition has no merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost.