Teaching Experience Under UGC Regulations For Recruiting Assistant Professors Must Be Based On Actual Period Of Teaching: Kerala High Court

The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions arising from disputes concerning the selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (English) in All Saints’ College, Thiruvananthapuram.

A Single Bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon, upon referring to the criteria for short-listing of candidates for interview for the Post of Assistant Professors in Colleges, observed: “True, the term ‘academic year’ means the period of twelve months commencing from the first day of June. However, what is required under Table 3B is 'teaching experience'. Therefore, ultimately it is the period the candidate taught at an educational institution that requires to be considered. Otherwise, the requirement under Table 3B ought to have been with reference to teaching experience during an academic year”.

“If such an interpretation is not given, the teaching experience prescribed under Table 3B would also include the period during which the college was closed”, the Bench further remarked.

Background

The dispute arose from a notification issued by All Saints’ College, Thiruvananthapuram, inviting applications from female candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (English) in accordance with the norms prescribed by the University of Kerala.

Several candidates applied pursuant to the notification, and the applications were scrutinised by a committee, which prepared a score sheet for shortlisting candidates for interview. The scoring was carried out in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2018, particularly the criteria specified in Table 3B under Regulation 6, which provides marks for academic qualifications, research publications, teaching experience and awards.

Certain candidates challenged the selection process before the High Court, contending that the marks awarded to some shortlisted candidates were incorrect and that they were wrongly included in the interview list. The challenges included objections to the marks awarded for research publications and teaching experience.

One of the selected candidates had been appointed as Assistant Professor pursuant to the selection process. Subsequently, the college issued a show-cause notice stating that marks had been incorrectly awarded for a research publication and that the candidate’s total score would fall below the cut-off required for an interview. The candidate responded by asserting that she was entitled to additional marks for teaching experience, which would keep her score above the cut-off threshold.

The dispute led to multiple writ petitions before the High Court, one challenging the appointment, another questioning the decision of the management to review the selection process, and a third challenging the inclusion of certain candidates in the interview list.

Court’s Observation

The Court first examined the challenge to the inclusion of certain candidates in the interview process. It noted that neither the recruitment notification nor the applicable norms prescribed any statutory minimum cut-off mark for being called for an interview. The Court therefore held that the challenge to the shortlisting process could not be sustained.

The principal issue that required determination, however, concerned the manner in which teaching experience should be calculated for awarding marks under Table 3B of the UGC Regulations.

The Court noted that Table 3B grants marks for teaching or post-doctoral experience at the rate of two marks for each year, subject to proportionate reduction where the period of experience is less than one year. The provision, therefore, required a careful evaluation of the actual period during which a candidate had engaged in teaching activities.

The Court examined the definition of the term “academic year” under the Kerala University First Statutes, which defines it as twelve months commencing from the first day of June. However, the Court observed that the UGC Regulations did not link teaching experience to the academic year but instead referred specifically to teaching experience.

Justice Menon held that if the term were interpreted to mean the entire academic year, it would result in counting periods when colleges remained closed, including vacation periods during which no teaching activities were conducted.

The Court emphasised that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of the provision, since the criterion under Table 3B was intended to evaluate the actual teaching experience gained by a candidate.

To determine the correct period of experience, the Court examined the certificates produced by the candidate as well as the academic calendar of the university under which the relevant colleges functioned. The academic calendar indicated the dates on which colleges reopened after summer vacation and when classes commenced.

Based on these materials, the Court held that the candidate’s teaching experience had to be calculated from the actual dates on which classes were conducted. Any reduction in marks could only relate to the limited period when teaching had not commenced.

Applying this interpretation, the Court recalculated the marks for teaching experience and concluded that the candidate would be entitled to 3.9 marks instead of the earlier assessment. This score placed the candidate above the relevant threshold for the interview.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., emphasising that statutory interpretation must be contextual and purposive, and that the provisions of a statute must be read as a whole to give effect to their purpose.

Conclusion

In light of its findings, the Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the interview and selection process while allowing the petition filed by the candidate whose appointment had been questioned.

The Court set aside the proceedings that had sought to review her marks and directed the college authorities to seek approval of her appointment from the University and release the salary due to her within the stipulated period.

Cause Title: Jovita James v. The University of Kerala & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:17033)

Appearances

Petitioner: Senior Advocate George Poonthottam and Advocate Nisha George

Respondents: Senior Advocate Elvin Peter P.J.; Senior Advocate Renjith Thampan; Advocate A.S. Shammy Raj; Thomas Abraham, Standing Counsel; N.B. Sunil Nath, Government Pleader

Click here to read/download Judgment