Can the years spent pursuing a PhD be counted towards the eight years of teaching or research experience required for appointment as an Associate Professor? The question is before the Supreme Court, which has reserved its judgment in a dispute concerning a faculty appointment at Kannur University in Kerala.
A Bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan heard petitions filed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and Professor Joseph Skaria challenging a 2023 Kerala High Court judgment that upheld the appointment of Priya Varghese as Associate Professor.
The case raises questions about how universities should assess experience gained by faculty members pursuing doctoral research, taking study leave or serving on deputation.
Under Regulation 4.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, candidates applying for Associate Professor positions in disciplines including Arts, Humanities, Sciences, Commerce and Social Sciences must possess a PhD in the relevant discipline and a master's degree with at least 55% marks.
They must also have a minimum of eight years of teaching and/or research experience in an academic or research position equivalent to that of an Assistant Professor.
The regulations additionally prescribe at least seven publications in peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals and a research score of 75.
However, possessing a PhD does not automatically mean that the years spent acquiring the degree can be included in the eight-year experience requirement.
Regulation 3.11 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, addresses how the period spent pursuing an MPhil or PhD should be treated for faculty appointments.
It provides that the time taken to acquire these research degrees cannot ordinarily be claimed as teaching or research experience.
However, the regulation makes a distinction for candidates who pursue research degrees while continuing their teaching assignments.
If a faculty member remains in active service and pursues a research degree simultaneously with teaching duties, without taking leave, that period can be counted as teaching experience for direct recruitment or promotion.
The same regulation also permits regular faculty members, up to 20 per cent of the total faculty strength, excluding those on medical or maternity leave, to take study leave for pursuing a PhD.
The interpretation of these provisions, particularly the relationship between study leave and qualifying teaching experience, is central to the dispute before the Supreme Court.
Regulation 8.2 separately lays down the conditions under which faculty members can take study leave.
It allows eligible teachers to pursue higher studies or research intended to improve their academic and professional knowledge.
Under the regulations, study leave is ordinarily available to eligible faculty members who have completed the prescribed period of continuous service. The provisions also specify limits on the duration of leave and conditions governing salary and other benefits.
Importantly, the study-leave provisions restrict teachers from undertaking regular part-time or full-time employment with another organisation during the leave period.
However, permission to take study leave and recognition of that period as qualifying teaching experience are separate questions. Whether and how these provisions should operate together is part of the legal dispute.
The dispute arose after Professor Joseph Skaria challenged Priya Varghese's inclusion at the top of the rank list for appointment as Associate Professor in the Department of Malayalam at Kannur University.
He questioned whether she possessed the required eight years of qualifying experience.
A single judge of the Kerala High Court initially ruled against counting certain periods of her service, including time spent pursuing doctoral research and serving on deputation.
However, a Division Bench of the High Court overturned that decision in June 2023 and upheld her eligibility.
The Division Bench examined the relationship between teaching and research, as well as the purpose of faculty development programmes.
It also held that experience gained during deputation could not be assessed solely on whether the deputed post was formally classified as teaching or non-teaching. The nature of the duties performed was relevant.
The UGC and Skaria subsequently challenged the Division Bench judgment before the Supreme Court.
Inputs from Bar and Bench
During the hearing, the UGC opposed including the disputed PhD period in Varghese's qualifying experience.
It argued that she had been away from her regular teaching duties while pursuing doctoral research under a Faculty Development Programme and that a substitute teacher had been appointed.
The UGC maintained that the 2018 regulations did not permit such a period to be treated as teaching experience.
Varghese's counsel, however, argued for a broader interpretation of the provisions governing faculty members pursuing research. The counsel also clarified that she had served on deputation, rather than leave, during another disputed period.
The Bench examined the purpose of the provision permitting regular faculty members to take study leave and questioned whether it could be treated merely as an administrative guideline without implications for qualifying experience.
The Court reserved its judgment and asked Varghese's counsel to submit a chart detailing her teaching experience.
The case also raises a separate question concerning faculty members who temporarily serve in administrative or other university positions.
The Kerala High Court's Division Bench held that the nature of the work performed during deputation was relevant when determining whether the period qualified as teaching experience.
This means that the classification of a post alone may not settle the question. The actual responsibilities undertaken and the applicable recruitment regulations may also need examination.
The Supreme Court's eventual ruling could provide further clarity on this issue.
The judgment could have implications for candidates applying for Associate Professor positions, particularly those who pursued doctoral research while employed as Assistant Professors.
It could also clarify how universities should assess periods of study leave, faculty development programmes and deputation when calculating the experience required for recruitment.
For candidates, the distinction between acquiring a PhD and gaining qualifying teaching or research experience remains important.
Until the Supreme Court delivers its judgment, candidates should refer to the applicable UGC regulations and recruitment notifications when assessing their eligibility.
The ruling is expected to clarify how the disputed provisions should be interpreted, although its precise implications will depend on the final judgment.