UGC Faculty Ratio Guidelines | Directory, Not Mandatory: AP HC Upholds Rationalisation of Teaching Posts

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the state government's rationalisation of faculty positions in universities, holding that candidates have no vested right to insist on the availability of specific teaching posts. The judgment clarifies that while UGC guidelines recommend a pyramidal faculty structure, deviations based on workload assessments do not constitute arbitrariness unless proven otherwise.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioners, eligible and qualified candidates for Assistant Professor positions, challenged multiple government orders rationalising faculty positions in Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati. They contended that the reduction of positions in the Geography department was arbitrary and violated UGC Regulations, 2018, particularly Regulation 12.1, which recommends a pyramidal faculty structure: one Professor, two Associate Professors, and four Assistant Professors per department.

Key Facts

• Government Orders under challenge:
  • G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 01.09.2023
  • G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 13.09.2023
  • G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 21.09.2023
  • G.O.Rt.No.145, dated 11.10.2023
• Recruitment Notification: Issued on 13.10.2023, later withdrawn, rendering the challenge to recruitment infructuous.
• Rationalisation Process:
  • Initiated in 2017 by the Andhra Pradesh government to reduce faculty positions across universities.
  • Challenged in W.P.Nos.23770 of 2017 and batch, with directions for reconsideration issued on 05.03.2021.
  • Appeals dismissed on 11.07.2023 (W.A No. 214 of 2021 and batch), with SLP (Civil) No.15975 of 2023 pending before the Supreme Court.
  • Fresh rationalisation undertaken by the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education, with recommendations accepted and implemented.

Procedural History

• 2017: Rationalisation process initiated.
• 05.03.2021: Learned Single Judge disposed of batch of writ petitions with directions for reconsideration.
• 11.07.2023: Division Bench dismissed writ appeals (W.A No. 214 of 2021 and batch).
• 21.12.2021: Advisory Committee constituted for rationalisation.
• 13.10.2023: Recruitment notification issued and later withdrawn.
• 23.06.2026: Present writ petition (W.P.No.28842 of 2023) dismissed.

The Parties' Positions

Petitioners' Contentions

• The rationalisation process violated UGC Regulation 12.1, which prescribes a pyramidal faculty structure.
• The process was arbitrary, with departments merged without uniformity.
• Workload calculations failed to account for:
  • Ph.D. students requiring guidance.
  • Faculty requirements for distance education courses.
  • Self-financed courses initiated under G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 26.07.2017.
• The reduction of positions deprived petitioners of employment opportunities.

Respondents' Contentions

• Sri Venkateswara University (3rd respondent) filed a counter-affidavit detailing the methodology for computing faculty positions.
• The university adhered to UGC guidelines dated 07.11.2022 and G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 13.02.2019, which stipulate:
  • 16 hours of teaching per week for Assistant Professors.
  • 2 hours daily for student mentoring.
  • 2 hours daily for research.
• The rationalisation process was conducted properly, with no deviation from statutory requirements.

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought:

• Quashing of the impugned government orders.
• Restoration of deleted faculty positions in the Geography department.
• A direction to permit recruitment for the positions claimed by the petitioners.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the rationalisation of faculty positions in Sri Venkateswara University, conducted under government orders, was arbitrary and violated UGC Regulations, 2018, and whether the petitioners had a vested right to insist on the availability of specific teaching posts.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

• Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued:
  • The rationalisation process violated UGC Regulation 12.1, which recommends a pyramidal faculty structure.
  • The process lacked uniformity and was conducted arbitrarily.
  • Workload calculations did not account for Ph.D. guidance, distance education, or self-financed courses.
  • The reduction of positions adversely affected the petitioners' employment prospects.

For the Respondents

• Yella Reddy Rajanala, S. Parineeta, and Government Pleader for Services-III contended:
  • The rationalisation process adhered to UGC guidelines dated 07.11.2022 and G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 13.02.2019.
  • The university's counter-affidavit demonstrated compliance with statutory requirements.
  • No vested right exists for candidates to insist on the availability of specific faculty positions.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the rival submissions and held:

1. Compliance with UGC Regulations:

   • The respondents demonstrated that the rationalisation process adhered to UGC guidelines and G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 13.02.2019.
   • The counter-affidavit filed by Sri Venkateswara University sufficiently established that the process was conducted properly.

2. Absence of Vested Right:

   • The Court emphasised that candidates have no vested right to insist on the availability of specific faculty positions.
   • The petitioners failed to plead or demonstrate any legal entitlement to the creation of a certain number of posts.

3. Arbitrariness:

   • The petitioners' contention of arbitrariness was not substantiated.
   • The Court noted that the rationalisation process was based on workload assessments and statutory guidelines, which did not mandate strict adherence to the pyramidal structure prescribed in UGC Regulation 12.1.

"Candidates such as petitioners do not have any vested right or interest to contend that a certain number of faculty positions should be available in university and that they should be permitted to participate in recruitment process for such faculty positions."

The Verdict

The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court holding:

• The rationalisation process was not arbitrary and complied with statutory guidelines.
• The petitioners had no vested right to insist on the availability of specific faculty positions.
• No costs were awarded.
• Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed.

What This Means For Similar Cases

No Vested Right to Specific Faculty Positions

• Practitioners must note that candidates cannot claim a vested right to the availability of specific teaching posts.
• The judgment reinforces that the creation and rationalisation of faculty positions are policy decisions, subject to statutory compliance, and not justiciable unless arbitrariness is proven.

UGC Guidelines Are Directory, Not Mandatory

• UGC Regulation 12.1, which recommends a pyramidal faculty structure, is directory and not mandatory.
• Universities may deviate from the prescribed ratio if workload assessments and statutory guidelines justify such deviations.

Burden of Proof Lies on the Petitioner

• To challenge rationalisation processes, petitioners must:
  • Demonstrate arbitrariness or non-compliance with statutory guidelines.
  • Plead and prove a legal entitlement to the creation of specific posts.
• Mere eligibility for a position does not confer a right to its availability.

Implications for Future Recruitment Challenges

• This judgment sets a precedent for dismissing challenges to faculty rationalisation unless substantive violations of statutory guidelines are proven.
• Universities and state authorities may rely on this judgment to defend rationalisation processes based on workload assessments and policy considerations.