LUCKNOW: In a ruling clarifying the supremacy of subject-specific regulatory norms over general faculty classifications, the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, quashed an order of the Chancellor of Lucknow University that had cancelled the appointments of two Associate Professors in the Department of Business Administration. The Division Bench held that specific eligibility qualifications incorporated under Statute 11.03.04(G) of the university’s First Statutes pursuant to the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2010 override general faculty criteria, thereby directing that the selected teachers be granted all consequential service benefits.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy stemmed from Recruitment Notice No. R-45/2015 issued by the University of Lucknow on August 10, 2015, inviting applications for the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Business Administration under qualifications prescribed by the First Statutes. Dr. Himanshu Mohan and Dr. Sangeeta Sahu applied, were interviewed on January 15, 2016, and were subsequently selected with the approval of the Executive Council. Appointment letters were issued on February 11, 2016, and both joined their posts on February 18, 2016.
An unsuccessful candidate, Dr. Ritu Narang, filed a delayed representation before the Chancellor of Lucknow University under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. She contended that because the Department of Business Administration fell within the Faculty of Commerce under Statute 7.07, the applicable criteria were governed by Statute 11.03.04(A) read with Statute 11.03.01 (General Eligibility Criteria). According to her, the selections were invalid because the selected candidates had not submitted documentary proof of having guided doctoral candidates and research students.
On November 27, 2017, the Chancellor condoned the delay and accepted this objection, holding that the petitioners lacked the essential minimum qualifications prescribed under Statute 11.03.04(A) read with Statute 11.03.01, and consequently ordered the cancellation of their appointments. Both teachers subsequently challenged the Chancellor’s annulment before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Sandeep Dixit argued that pursuant to a State Government order dated December 3, 2013 issued under Section 50(6) of the Act of 1973, the UGC Regulations, 2010 were incorporated into the First Statutes of the University as Statute 11.03.04(G). It was submitted that Statute 11.03.04(G) is a special provision specifically governing appointments in Management and Business Administration and therefore takes precedence over the general eligibility rules. Counsel emphasized that both candidates possessed all required qualifications under Statute 11.03.04(G), the Selection Committee evaluated them under those specific provisions, and they were never asked to submit doctoral guidance certificates—though they possessed such credentials as well.
Conversely, counsel for the respondents reiterated the Chancellor’s rationale, asserting that because the Department of Business Administration was housed within the Faculty of Commerce, the university had to strictly apply the general commerce qualifications under Statute 11.03.04(A) read with Statute 11.03.01. Relying on the established principle that when a power is given to do a thing in a certain way, it must be done in that way or not at all, the respondents maintained that any departure rendered the appointments void.
The Court’s Analysis
Examining Chapter XI of the First Statutes, the Bench noted that while Statute 11.03.01 lays down general eligibility criteria, Statute 11.03.04(G) was incorporated on December 3, 2013 to implement Regulation 4.4.5 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 specifically for teaching faculty in Management and Business Administration.
Addressing the statutory conflict, the Court observed:
“We are of the view that Statute 11.03.04(G) was incorporated into the ‘First Statutes’ as a consequence of the adoption of the Regulations, 2010 and prescribes specific eligibility qualifications for the appointment of teachers in Management/Business Administration courses. Being a specific provision, it would prevail over the General Eligibility Criteria prescribed under Statute 11.03.01 of the ‘First Statutes’ of the University of Lucknow.”
The Court rejected the argument that administrative placement within the Faculty of Commerce altered the subject requirements, stating:
“The term ‘teaching faculty’ refers to teachers appointed for imparting education to students enrolled in courses of Management/Business Administration and includes within its ambit, the teaching staff in the Department of Business Administration. Merely because the Department of Business Administration falls within the Faculty of Commerce does not in any manner dilute or override the minimum eligibility qualifications prescribed under the Regulations, 2010 with regard to the appointment of teachers for courses in Management/Business Administration.”
The Bench further remarked:
“Under the Regulations, 2010 eligibility is determined on the basis of whether the subject/discipline of the Master’s or Ph.D. degree corresponds to the requirements of the advertised teaching post irrespective of whether the appointment is made in a department or a faculty. For the purpose of determining eligibility, it would be fatal to refer to Statute 11.03.04(A) read with Statute 11.03.01 as doing so would amount to bypassing the minimum eligibility qualifications prescribed under the Regulations, 2010 for the appointment of teachers in Management/Business Administration.”
The Court also observed that the university could not contradict its own selection committee, which had conducted the recruitment under Statute 11.03.04(G). Furthermore, the petitioners could not be faulted for omitting documents concerning doctoral guidance when the Selection Committee never demanded them.
Decision of the Court
Holding that the Chancellor’s order was based on a misconceived notion of fact and law that overlooked the statutory amendments of December 3, 2013, the High Court quashed the order dated November 27, 2017. The Bench held that the selections of Dr. Himanshu Mohan and Dr. Sangeeta Sahu were just and proper and declared them entitled to all consequential benefits arising from their appointments. Both writ petitions were accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Dr. Himanshu Mohan Versus Chancellor Lko. University. Lko. and others (with connected matter Dr. Sangeeta Sahu Versus Chancellor Lko. University. Lko. and others)
Case No.: WRIT – A No. 29510 of 2017 and WRIT – A No. 29508 of 2017
Bench: Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai
Date: October 12, 2026
