Supreme Court Reserves Judgment on Whether PhD Period Counts Towards Associate Professor Teaching Experience

What the Supreme Court has done

The Supreme Court has reserved judgment on a dispute about the calculation of teaching experience for appointment as an Associate Professor under the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018. Justices Sanjay Kumar and Manmohan heard challenges brought by the UGC and Professor Joseph Skaria to a Kerala High Court ruling that supported the appointment of Priya Varghese at Kannur University. The reservation of judgment means arguments have concluded; it does not mean the Court has accepted either interpretation.

The Court also asked counsel representing Varghese to submit a chart of her teaching experience. That direction is significant because the legal issue is inseparable from the precise nature and duration of the work she performed while pursuing research and holding university responsibilities. The final decision, rather than questions put to counsel during the hearing, will determine the binding position.

How the appointment dispute arose

Varghese was selected for the post of Associate Professor at Kannur University. Joseph Skaria, who was placed below her in the selection ranking, questioned whether she satisfied the requirement of eight years of teaching experience. A Single Judge of the Kerala High Court directed the university to reconsider her qualifications, but a Division Bench ruled in her favour. The unsuccessful candidate and the UGC then pursued appeals before the Supreme Court.

The dispute is not simply whether a person possesses a PhD. The central question is which periods of professional activity may lawfully be counted as qualifying teaching or research experience for a specified academic appointment. In particular, the parties disagree about the consequences of research undertaken during service, study leave and deputation to administrative assignments.

The regulatory text in dispute

Regulation 3.1.1 of the 2018 UGC Regulations addresses the treatment of time spent acquiring an MPhil or PhD. It excludes time spent acquiring those degrees from teaching or research experience claimed for appointments, while separately addressing active service spent pursuing a research degree simultaneously with teaching duties without leave. The provision also refers to study leave for regular faculty within a stated institutional limit.

The language creates an important interpretive problem: the exclusion for time spent obtaining a degree must be read alongside the exception or clarification relating to active service and the separate provision on study leave. Whether particular periods count cannot be answered merely by identifying the degree; the nature of employment and the applicable regulatory conditions must be examined.

Competing submissions before the Bench

Senior Advocate P N Ravindran, appearing for Skaria, argued that the regulation contains distinct categories and that Varghese could not rely on the active-service provision for periods when she was not actually teaching. He pointed to her deputation and to a substitute teacher having been appointed. He also disputed whether her work as Director of Student Services constituted teaching.

Senior Advocate K Parmeshwar, appearing for Varghese, resisted that construction and argued for a reading that gives practical meaning to the provision addressing faculty pursuing research. Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj advanced the UGC position that the contested PhD period could not be counted where the mandatory experience requirement was not fulfilled. These are rival submissions, not findings announced by the Supreme Court.

Questions raised and their limits

During the hearing, the judges examined whether an unduly narrow reading would discourage academics from accepting university responsibilities. They also questioned how each part of Regulation 3.1.1 could be given meaning without making another part redundant. Those exchanges illuminate the interpretive difficulty but must not be reported as a final holding on deputation, study leave or teaching experience.

The Court has not yet declared Varghese eligible or ineligible in the appeals. Nor has it announced a universal rule that every PhD period counts, or that every such period must be excluded. A precise statement of the law will depend on the reserved judgment and the factual findings it adopts.

Why the eventual ruling matters

Universities assess applicants against minimum academic qualifications, and selection disputes frequently turn on service certificates, deputation records and the classification of duties. A reasoned interpretation of the 2018 regulation could affect how institutions evaluate overlapping teaching, research and administrative responsibilities, especially where a faculty member continues in service while pursuing a degree.

For applicants, the immediate lesson is evidentiary: the nature of service, leave orders and actual teaching assignments must be documented rather than assumed. For selection committees, the decision will clarify how to distinguish time spent solely obtaining a degree from qualifying service performed alongside research. Until judgment is pronounced, the issue remains under consideration.