In a significant ruling, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra of the Supreme Court of India emphasized the necessity for writ courts to adhere strictly to the evidence and facts pleaded in a case. The decision, delivered in Allahabad University & Others v. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) & Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 12411-12415 of 2024), reprimanded the High Court of Allahabad for overstepping its jurisdiction by interpreting University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations in a manner not supported by the record.
Case Background
The case arose from disputes over the shortlisting process for Assistant Professor positions at Allahabad University and its affiliated colleges. Respondent Geetanjali Tiwari, a qualified candidate, was excluded from the interview list due to her teaching experience as a contractual and guest lecturer not being recognized under the UGC’s 2018 Regulations. Specifically, Regulation 10(f)(iii) stipulates that past service must include a salary equivalent to a regular Assistant Professor’s pay scale to be considered.
Tiwari challenged her exclusion, arguing that the university’s interpretation of the regulation was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court read down Regulation 10(f)(iii) to exclude its application for the post of Assistant Professor, a move the Supreme Court ultimately invalidated.
Key Legal Issues
1. Limits of Judicial Interpretation:
– Whether writ courts can alter statutory regulations by adding or deleting words not present in the law.
2. Reliance on Pleadings and Evidence:
– The scope of a writ court’s authority to decide based on facts and arguments not explicitly pleaded by the parties.
3. Validity of Regulation 10(f)(iii):
– Whether the emoluments-based condition for recognizing teaching experience is arbitrary or violates constitutional rights.
Supreme Court Observations
1. Adherence to Pleadings and Evidence:
The Court underscored the principle that writ courts must decide cases strictly within the framework of the pleadings and evidence presented. It noted, “Findings of the court have to be based on pleadings and the evidence produced. Courts cannot conjecture and create a case that the parties have not pleaded.”
2. Judicial Overreach:
The Court criticized the High Court’s decision to read down Regulation 10(f)(iii) without a clear finding of unconstitutionality. Justice Dipankar Datta remarked, “Courts cannot rewrite or amend statutory provisions under the guise of interpretation. Judicial legislation is beyond the scope of judicial review.”
3. Rationale Behind Regulation 10(f)(iii):
The Court upheld the UGC regulation, stating that the distinction based on salary scales is rationally connected to ensuring academic quality. It added, “Uniform standards for recognizing experience ensure the integrity of recruitment processes in higher education.”
4. Role of Regulations in Academic Recruitment:
The Court supported the use of objective criteria in shortlisting candidates, given the large number of applications received for limited posts. It noted, “The regulations reflect a considered policy to streamline recruitment without compromising merit.”
Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling, restoring the validity of Regulation 10(f)(iii) in its entirety. It directed universities to adhere to the regulation for counting teaching experience while ensuring compliance with established legal principles. The judgment emphasized that recruitment processes must be fair, transparent, and aligned with the statutory framework.
