Can the years spent earning a PhD be counted as teaching experience for appointment as Associate Professor under the UGC Regulations, 2018? The Supreme Court has reserved judgment on that question in appeals over Priya Varghese’s appointment at Kannur University.
New Delhi: Whether the time taken to acquire an MPhil or PhD may be treated as teaching experience, or research experience, for teaching posts is the question on which the Supreme Court has reserved its verdict, in appeals concerning Regulation 3.1.1 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018. The appeals are by the UGC and Dr. Joseph Skaria against a 2023 Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment that upheld the appointment of Priya Varghese as Associate Professor at Kannur University [University Grants Commission and Dr. Joseph Skaria v. Priya Varghese and Others].
Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Manmohan heard the appeals. Before reserving the matter, the Bench asked counsel for Varghese to submit a chart of her teaching experience.
The clause the Bench must read
Regulation 3.1.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 provides:
“The time taken by candidates to acquire M.Phil. and/or Ph.D. Degree shall not be considered as teaching/research experience to be claimed for appointment to the teaching positions. Further, the period of active service spent on pursuing a Research Degree simultaneously with teaching assignment without taking any kind of leave, shall be counted as teaching experience for the purpose of direct recruitment/promotion. Regular faculty members up to twenty percent of the total faculty strength (excluding faculty on medical/maternity leave) shall be allowed by their respective institutions to take study leave for pursuing Ph.D. degree.”
Dr. Skaria and the UGC: why the PhD years should not count
Senior Advocate P.N. Ravindran, for Dr. Skaria, divided the regulation into three parts: a general bar covering all candidates, an exception for those in active service who pursue research while teaching without taking leave, and a guideline for regular faculty. In his submission, Varghese fell outside the exception, since she was on deputation and a substitute teacher had been appointed in her place. He added that her post at Kannur University, Director of Student Services, was a non-teaching one, which the University’s ordinances treat as an interactive rather than a teaching post. The last part, he also argued, caps PhD study leave at 20% of faculty strength.
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, for the UGC, also opposed counting the disputed periods. He argued that Varghese did not meet the mandatory eight-year requirement, that the time she spent on her PhD under the Faculty Development Programme could not be counted, that an earlier UGC clarification allowing such periods had been superseded by the 2018 Regulations, and that research undertaken while on leave could not be treated as teaching experience.
What the Bench asked
Justice Manmohan asked whether such a reading would discourage young academics from taking up higher posts.
“In Delhi University, the dean only interacts. Young professors have been known to be appointed in big posts; if we accept your interpretation, these professors will not become and take a position if you say this doesn’t count as teaching post.”
Justice Sanjay Kumar questioned the submission that the third part of the regulation is merely a guideline, observing that it allows regular faculty on leave to pursue a PhD. Justice Manmohan agreed, indicating that the petitioner’s reading would render the third part otiose.
Varghese’s answer
Senior Advocate K. Parmeshwar, for Varghese, clarified that she was on deputation and not on leave. He told the Court that Dr. Skaria had not disclosed that he has retired and is working as a Professor at Calicut University. On the 20% reading, he argued that the clause was meant to ensure that faculty pursuing a PhD would have that period treated as teaching or research experience even while on leave, and that any other interpretation would be illogical.
A rank list, a writ petition and two High Court rulings
Varghese is the wife of CPI(M) leader K.K. Ragesh, who was Private Secretary to then Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. Dr. Skaria, ranked below her in the rank list, filed a writ petition contending that she did not have the eight years of teaching experience prescribed for the post.
A single judge of the Kerala High Court found that she lacked the requisite experience and directed Kannur University to re-examine her credentials. A Division Bench reversed that ruling in her favour, and both Dr. Skaria and the UGC then appealed.
What turns on the verdict
The ruling will settle how universities across the country read Regulation 3.1.1 when they count experience for Associate Professor and other teaching posts. If the PhD period of faculty on leave or deputation is excluded, many in-service teachers who pursued doctorates through programmes such as the Faculty Development Programme could fall short of the eight-year threshold. If it is included, the general bar in the first part of the regulation would apply mainly to candidates outside service. Beyond Kannur University, the verdict will guide selection committees and courts hearing similar challenges.
Case Title: University Grants Commission and Dr. Joseph Skaria v. Priya Varghese and Others (appeals against the Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment of 2023)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Manmohan, Supreme Court of India
Status: Judgment reserved; chart of teaching experience to be filed
Appearances: Senior Advocate P.N. Ravindran for Dr. Joseph Skaria; Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj for the UGC; Senior Advocate K. Parmeshwar for Priya Varghese