|Case||State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v/s Manoj Sharma and Others|
|Case Number||Civil Appeal Number 871 of 2018|
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Bench||Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice AK Sikri|
|Author of the judgment||Justice Ashok Bhushan|
|Decided On||January 25, 2018|
|Relevant Act/Sections||University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for the award of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009- Regulation 5.|
|Author of the casebrief||Lavanya Gupta|
Brief Facts and Procedural History:
Manoj Sharma and others were engaged as guest lecturers in various Government/Semi-Government colleges before the year 2009. In 2009 they passed M.Phil. from different universities under distance education. An order was issued in 2012 by the Higher Education Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh which gave an arrangement of guest lecturers in Government colleges for the forthcoming academic sessions. Along with the order, the criterion was also given. When an advertisement was released an inviting application for the post of Guest Lecturers, Manoj Sharma and others applied, but their applications were rejected as those applicants who obtained M.Phil through distance education were not qualified. Manoj Sharma and others filed a writ petition in High Court challenging this rejection. By way of the order, The High Court directed the education department to accept the former’s application forms and declare the results thereafter. State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by this, appealed against the judgment of the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Court of Law:
Whether the High Court’s decision of asking the Department of Higher Education in Madhya Pradesh to consider Manoj Sharma and other’s application and declare the results thereafter was correct?
The ratio of the Court:
Yes, the High Court was right in its decision. On a careful reading of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for the award of M.Phil/ Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, Regulation 5 implies that the regulations shall be prospective in nature. As the regulations were not retrospective, they did not apply to degrees obtained through distance education before 11.07.2009. Manoj Sharma and others had obtained their degrees before 11.07.2009 and hence, the qualification was valid. Thus, the High Court judge had rightly asked for the consideration of applications of Manoj Sharma and other candidates.
The law needs to be read carefully, with respect to its date of enforcement, etc. In the present case, the Regulations were applicable to degrees obtained only after 11.07.2009. Before the particular date itself, Manoj Sharma and other candidates had obtained their respective degrees, though through distance education, and they were valid given the prospective nature of the legislation. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision and asked the Education Department to consider the candidates’ eligibility and the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for the award of M.Phil/ Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009.