JUDGMENT : The petitioner applied to the post of Assistant Professor in Molecular Biology in the services of Kannur University, in response to Ext.P1 notification issued by them. He alleges that the online format for disclosure of his credentials did not provide for opportunity to upload all his teaching experience since, as evident from Ext.P2 screenshot of the instructions, solely the post-doctoral teaching experience could be uploaded. He asserts that even though he obtained Ph.D only in the year 2018, he had large experience as a teacher in Medical Biochemistry prior to it; and that this also ought to have been reckoned by the Screening/Selection Committee of the University, in which event, he would have been found eligible for being shortlisted for interview. 2. The petitioner asserts that since the online format incapacitated him from even uploading the teaching experience prior to the obtention of Ph.D, the Screening/Selection Committee erred in denying him the opportunity of being called for interview. He thus prays that Ext.P6 shortlist be quashed and it be declared that Ext.P1 notification is not in tune with the ‘UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘UGC Regulations, 2018 for short). 3. I have heard Sri. P.K. Ibrahim – learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy – learned Standing Counsel for the University Grants Commission (UGC) and Sri. I.V. Pramod – learned Standing Counsel for the Kannur University. 4. Sri. P.K. Ibrahim vehemently argued that, going by the ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’, post-graduation in a subject, in which the National Eligibility Test (NET) has not been conducted by the UGC or by such other competent Agency, would have to be reckoned as eligible qualification. He pointed out that said Regulation provides that, in addition to post-graduation, a person must have obtained either NET or Ph.D., but that this is applicable only in a case where the NET was conducted in the subject in question. He pointed out that said Regulation provides that, in addition to post-graduation, a person must have obtained either NET or Ph.D., but that this is applicable only in a case where the NET was conducted in the subject in question. He argued that since the post in question in this case is Assistant Professor in Microbiology and since the UGC has not conducted NET in the said subject, his client’s pre-doctoral experience as a post-graduate also ought to have been given credit to; but that this was denied in spite of the fact that, when being incapacitated from uploading such information, he had forwarded it in the physical format to the Screening/Selection Committee. He then submitted that, however, the said additional information was refused to be considered by the Screening/Selection Committee and that this is evident from Ext.P7 communication issued to his client by the University. He thus prayed that the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition be granted. 5. In response, Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy – learned Standing Counsel for the UGC, submitted that the petitioner appears to be acting on a misdirected assumption in the manner the ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’ operates. He pointed out that, as per the said Regulations, the qualification for the post of Assistant Professor is a post-graduation in the concerned subject, along with NET; and that in a case where a candidate obtained Ph.D, the requirement of passing NET is waived. He predicated that, therefore, it is limpid that when the petitioner is a post-graduate in Medical Biochemistry and when his teaching experience is also in that field, the same could be reckoned only had he obtained NET in such subject or the discipline in which it is included. He then submitted that, since the petitioner admits that he has not obtained NET in Medical Biochemistry, but then acquired Ph.D. in the year 2018, only his post Ph.D. teaching experience could have been reckoned; and that he has correctly disclosed the same in Ext.P3, which, however, disentitles him from being shortlisted on account of inadequacy of such. 6. Sri. He then submitted that, since the petitioner admits that he has not obtained NET in Medical Biochemistry, but then acquired Ph.D. in the year 2018, only his post Ph.D. teaching experience could have been reckoned; and that he has correctly disclosed the same in Ext.P3, which, however, disentitles him from being shortlisted on account of inadequacy of such. 6. Sri. S. Krishna Moorthy – then added that his client has filed pleadings on record, including statements dated 09.01.2023 and 22.11.2022, unambiguously averring that since Medical Bio-Chemistry as well as Molecular Biology are components of the discipline of “Life Sciences” - in which NET has been offered even at the time when the petitioner obtained his Post Graduate Degree - he ought to have applied under it and cleared it. He explained that, it is true that NET is not conducted in all the individual subjects, but only in disciplines which take into its fold several subjects; and that “Life Sciences” is one such. He argued that when the petitioner was aware, or ought to have been aware, that his subject was a component of “Life Sciences”, he should have applied for and cleared it, for his teaching experience as per the “UGC Regulations, 2018” to be reckoned for the purpose of appointment. 7. Sri. I.V. Pramod – learned Standing Counsel for the Kannur University, adopted the afore submissions of Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy saying that, as long as the petitioner is unable to point out that the Screening/Selection Committee has committed a legal error, this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable. He explained that he says so because, the information given by the petitioner in Ext.P3 is the only one that could have been considered by the Screening/Selection Committee; and therefore, when they have done so, no fingers can be pointed at them, as has been now attempted to be done by the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 8. I have considered and evaluated the afore submissions on the touchstone of various materials and documents particularly the ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’. 9. Most of the facts and provisions of law involved in this case are undisputed. 10. The fact that the ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’ provide for a post-graduate degree, along with NET or Ph.D. in lieu of it, being the qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor, is without dispute. 9. Most of the facts and provisions of law involved in this case are undisputed. 10. The fact that the ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’ provide for a post-graduate degree, along with NET or Ph.D. in lieu of it, being the qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor, is without dispute. 11. In the case at hand, the petitioner is a post-graduate in Medical Biochemistry and says that he had taught prior to his obtention of Ph.D. in that subject for a large period of time. The question is whether such teaching experience is also liable to be reckoned for the purpose of selection under Ext.P1 notification. 12. I am afraid that answer to the above would certainly be to the negative because, any teaching experience without Ph.D. or NET would become eligible for being reckoned only if the petitioner is able to establish that the UGC or other competent Agencies had not conducted NET in the subject or discipline in question. Pertinently, the UGC unequivocally avers in their statements, filed by their Standing Counsel, that NET is conducted by it in Life Science, of which ‘Medical Biochemistry’ is a component; and that the petitioner does not appear to have even applied for the same. 13. However, the contention of Sri. P.K. Ibrahim is, interestingly, that, as long as there is no NET conducted in ‘Bio-Chemistry’ – being the subject in which his client obtained his post-graduation; or ‘Molecular Biology’ – being the post to which he had applied, the stipulations in the ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’, would still inure to him the benefit of reckoning his pre-doctoral teaching experience. 14. Apart from the fact that the afore argument would fall foul of the specific stipulations in the ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’, it can also not find favour of this Court from the angle of the forensic scheme or reason. This is because, the exemption from obtaining NET or Ph.D. is offered to a candidate only in the case where he is unable to obtain NET solely on account of the fact that the UGC or the other competent Agencies did not conduct it in the ‘discipline’ in question. This is because, the exemption from obtaining NET or Ph.D. is offered to a candidate only in the case where he is unable to obtain NET solely on account of the fact that the UGC or the other competent Agencies did not conduct it in the ‘discipline’ in question. This does not mean that if the petitioner applies for a post - which stipulates his qualification to be an allied one to that prescribed - he can maintain that his previous experience in the subject without NET or Ph.D should be reckoned, when the UGC affirmatively states that it has conducted and still conducts NET in ‘Life Sciences’, of which, the subjects in which he is qualified, and to which he has applied, are components of. This is more so because, other candidates are stated to have obtained NET in ‘Life Sciences’, when their respective qualifications were in allied subjects – thus being similarly situated as the petitioner. The contra-argument of the petitioner would certainly be anachronistic to the nature and scheme of the ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’, since it is not intended to grant benefit to persons like him, who did not apply for or obtain NET in the ‘discipline’, of which the subject in which he has obtained his Masters Degree, or in the one he applied for; are components. 15. I am persuaded as afore because there is great force in the submissions of Sri.S.Krishna Moorthy – learned Standing Counsel for the UGC, since it may not be possible for it or other competent Agencies to conduct NET in all the subjects, which run in to several hundreds. Such examinations are either conducted “subject wise” or “discipline wise”; and in the case at hand, the subject in which the petitioner qualified, namely Medical Bio Chemistry and the subject qua the post he has applied, namely Molecular Biology, are both stated to be components of “Life Sciences”, in which NET has been admittedly conducted. 16. Therefore, merely because the petitioner was not aware of this – even if it is so assumed – I cannot blame the Screening/Selection Committee to have not accepted his Pre-doctoral teaching experience, since the “UGC Regulations, 2018” make it limpid that it is only if the candidate had obtained NET in the subject or the discipline, could the same have been reckoned. 17. 17. This is apodictic because the “UGC Regulations, 2018”, render it indubitable that qualified teaching experience is one after obtaining a Post Graduation in the relevant subject, along with the NET or Ph.D, and not otherwise. 18. To paraphrase, if the petitioner had obtained NET in ‘Life Sciences’, along with post-graduate degree and had teaching experience on the strength of the same, he will obtain a case to argue that the same ought to have been reckoned, even though the online format did not have any field to accommodate such credentials. However, in the case at hand, it is admitted that he had acquired Ph.D only in the year 2018; while he had never applied for NET in ‘Life Sciences’, which includes the subject in which he had obtained his Masters Degree. In the afore circumstances and particularly because the petitioner’s disclosure in Ext.P3 appears to be without error, I am of the firm view that he is not entitled to reliefs in this Writ Petition and therefore, it is closed.