JUDGMENT : Dated this the 19 th day of March, 2025 The petitioner, who is now working as Professor in the Department of Mathematics, Government Engineering College, Thrissur, has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside Ext.P10 and to direct the respondents to consider the claim and interview the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner for the post of Professor in Mathematics as per Clause 4.1 (III) A (ii) of UGC Regulations , 2018 and Ext.P1 notification, without delay. 2. The petitioner states that the respondents have invited application for selection and appointment to the post of Professors in various Departments in the University as per Ext.P1 notification. As the petitioner is qualified for the post of Professor in Mathematics, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application. 3. The petitioner learnt that the interview for the post of Professor in Mathematics was held on 18.01.2022 and no candidates are ranked. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is fully qualified as per UGC Regulations , 2018 and as per Ext.P1 notification. He is entitled to be called for the interview and to get his candidature considered for appointment to the post of Professor in Mathematics. 4. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation to the 2 nd respondent. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.27065 of 2023. This Court directed the matter to be considered, as per Ext.P9 judgment. The respondents, however, have rejected the representation of the petitioner as per Ext.P10 order. In Ext.P10 order, the Deputy Registrar has stated that the petitioner's application for appointment to the post of Professor in the Department of Mathematics stands rejected for want of the mandatory qualifications as stipulated by the UGC. 5. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Ext.P1 notification and stated that the petitioner has all the requisite qualifications prescribed in Ext.P1. Ext.P1 states that a minimum of ten years of teaching experience in University / College as Assistant Professor / Associate Professor / Professor and / or research experience at equivalent level at the University / National Level Institutions with evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidate. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has more than ten years teaching experience as is evident from Ext.P2 and for persons having more than ten years teaching experience, research experience equivalent level need not be insisted. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has more than ten years teaching experience as is evident from Ext.P2 and for persons having more than ten years teaching experience, research experience equivalent level need not be insisted. The words “and / or” contained in Clause 1 (A)(ii) is to be treated as “or” only and any other meaning will defeat the very purpose of the rules and will create an awkward situation. 7. The eligibility conditions as prescribed in Ext.P1 is in tune with Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education Regulations, 2018 of the UGC. As the petitioner satisfies the eligibility conditions and essential qualifications as prescribed in Ext.P1, the petitioner's candidature is liable to be considered for selection and appointment to the post of Professor, urged the Counsel for the petitioner. 8. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, the Standing Counsel submitted that “evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidate” is one of the mandatory qualifications for the post. The petitioner cannot be considered to have required qualification as per notification as there is no evidence of successfully guiding doctoral candidates. In the selection process, only one candidate was found to have the requisite qualifications. That candidate was interviewed by the Selection Committee. The single candidate could not score the minimum marks required as per the interview criteria. Therefore, the single candidate was not ranked. 9. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the words “and / or” in the Clause is not meant for research experience only. A candidate should possess either teaching experience of ten years or research experience of ten years at an equivalent level or a total of ten years of experience in teaching and research combined together. But, even though the petitioner is having research experience and teaching experience, still he should have the further qualification of successfully guiding doctoral candidates. 10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 11. The petitioner responded to Ext.P1 notification and applied for selection to the post of Professor in Mathematics. Ext.P2 is the copy of application submitted by the petitioner. 10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 11. The petitioner responded to Ext.P1 notification and applied for selection to the post of Professor in Mathematics. Ext.P2 is the copy of application submitted by the petitioner. Ext.P2 would indicate that the petitioner has three years and zero months and 19 days of teaching experience in Government Engineering College, Sreekrishnapuram and 12 years, 7 months and 16 days teaching experience in Government Engineering College, Thrissur. 12. Ext.P1 notification gives essential qualifications for candidates. The essential qualifications reads as follows:- i) An eminent scholar having a Ph.D Degree in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with, a minimum of 10 research publications in the peer reviewed or UGC listed journals and a total research score of 120 as per the criteria given in Appendix II, Table 2 of UGC Regulations , 2018. ii) A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in University/College as Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Professor and/or research experience at equivalent level at the University/National Level Institutions with evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidate. (emphasis supplied) 13. Ext.P11 is the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in the Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018. Regulation 4.1(III) of the Regulations, 2018 reads as follows: i) An eminent scholar having a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with, a minimum of 10 research publications in the peer- reviewed or UGC-listed journals and a total research score of 120 as per the criteria given in Appendix II, Table 2. ii) A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in University/College as Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Professor, and/or research experience at equivalent level at the University/National Level Institutions with evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidate. iii) An outstanding professional, having a Ph.D.Degree in the relevant/allied/applied disciplines, from any academic institutions (not included in A above) / industry, who has made significant contribution to the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, supported by documentary evidence provided he/she ten years' experience. 14. Regulation 4.1 (III) would show that the University has practically adopted the qualification prescribed by the UGC. 14. Regulation 4.1 (III) would show that the University has practically adopted the qualification prescribed by the UGC. The contention of the petitioner is that a candidate need either a minimum of ten years of teaching experience in University / College as an Assistant Professor / Associate Professor / Professor and / or research experience at equivalent level at the University / National Level Institutions with evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidate. 15. According to the petitioner, the term “and / or” appearing above, is evidently a mistake and the term should be treated to mean as “or”, because any other meaning attributed to the qualification part would result in an anomaly. In other words, the argument of the petitioner is that if persons having minimum ten years of teaching experience in University / College as Assistant Professor / Associate Professor / Professor, then such candidates are entitled to apply for the post even if the candidates do not have research experience at an equivalent level at the Universities / National Level Institutions with evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidates. 16. Going through Exts.P1 and P11, I find that the proposition advanced by the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is for the reason that the rationale behind prescribing such qualifications is that, the post being of a Professor in the University, experience in research guidance cannot alone be taken as a desirable qualification. Apart from teaching experience, experience in guiding research scholars is important in the matter of discharge the duties of a Professor. It is for that reason that the UGC, as well as the respondents, insisted that for appointment as a Professor, there should be evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidates. 17. It is further to be noted that the experience in successfully guiding doctoral candidates is a distinct requirement unconnected with the experience in teaching or experience in research. Either way, whether a candidate is experienced in teaching or whether a candidate is experienced in research, such candidates should have a minimum experience in guiding doctoral candidates, the post held being that of a Professor. 18. In the circumstances, I find that the essential qualifications for appointment to the post of Professor prescribed in Exts.P1 and P11 should be taken as one insisting for successfully guiding doctoral candidates, which is applicable to both categories, namely, candidates having teaching experience and candidates having research experience. 18. In the circumstances, I find that the essential qualifications for appointment to the post of Professor prescribed in Exts.P1 and P11 should be taken as one insisting for successfully guiding doctoral candidates, which is applicable to both categories, namely, candidates having teaching experience and candidates having research experience. Admittedly, the petitioner does not have evidence of having successfully guiding doctoral candidates. Therefore, the respondents were justified in not considering the candidature of the petitioner. The writ petition fails and it is therefore dismissed.