11.1 Bare Act Provision
10. Staff of the Commission.— Subject to such rules as may be made by the Central Government in this behalf, the Commission may appoint a Secretary and such other employees as it may think necessary for the efficient performance of its functions under this Act and the terms and conditions of service of the employees shall be such as may be determined by the Commission.
11.2 Explanation
Section 10 of the UGC Act, outlines the administrative infrastructure of the Commission. It creates a hybrid authority model where the Central Government sets the rules for appointments, but the Commission itself carries out the hiring and determines the day-to-day service conditions. The power of the Commission to appoint staff is subject to such rules as may be made by the Central Government under Section 25 of the UGC Act.
This ensures that the UGC does not have absolute autonomy in hiring; it must follow the overarching framework such as reservation policies, pay scales, and recruitment standards etc., set by the Ministry of Education. The Commission is specifically empowered to appoint a Secretary, who is the highest administrative officer and other necessary employees. This is vital for its efficient performance. Once the general rules are established by the government, the specific terms and conditions are determined by the Commission itself.
The judiciary has consistently held that while the Central Government makes the rules, it cannot dictate who specifically should be hired if the candidate meets the statutory criteria. In this context, the court examined the qualifications and appointments made under the Act. It established that the Commission’s power to appoint is a statutory duty, and as long as it adheres to the rules mentioned in Section 10, its decisions are generally protected from arbitrary executive override.[1]
Employees of the UGC are employees of a statutory body, not the Central Government itself. However, because they are appointed under a Central Act, they fall under the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution. The principle applied to Section 10 of the UGC Act is that such staff are public servants for the purpose of the law, but they do not enjoy the same protections as civil servants under Article 311 of the Constitution, which applies only to government employees.[2]
11.3 Critical Analysis
Procedural Delay: Whenever the UGC needs to expand its staff or create new technical roles, e.g., for cyber-security or digital learning, it cannot act until the Central Government notifies or amends the recruitment rules. This often involves a long cycle of inter-ministerial consultations between the UGC, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Finance. Regulatory bodies in various sectors often suffer from high vacancy rates because the recruitment rules are outdated or stuck in government approval loops.[3] Under Section 10, the UGC is frequently under-staffed while waiting for Government Rules to catch up with modern needs.
Constitutional Validity and Ultra Vires: Section 10 is constitutionally valid under the theory of Delegated Legislation. It does not grant the Commission unfettered power. By making the power subject to government rules, the Parliament has ensured executive oversight. If the Commission determines terms and conditions that directly contradict a Central Government rule, e.g., ignoring federal reservation policies, those actions are ultra vires. The UGC can set standards, it cannot act in a way that ignores the policy directives of the Central Government if those directives fall within the scope of Section 20 of the Act which empowers the Government to give directions on policy.[4]
Colonial Era Policy and Irrelevance: Section 10 reflects a Colonial Bureaucratic Model known as the Contingent Staffing approach. During the British era, statutory bodies were often kept on a short leash by making their staff appointments subject to Crown Approval. Section 10 mimics this by making the UGC’s internal workforce dependent on Government-made rules. In the age of “Minimum Government, Maximum Governance,” modern regulatory bodies, like SEBI or the RBI, have much higher degrees of autonomy over their staff selection and pay structures. The UGC model is seen as archaic because it treats a high-level academic regulator like a standard government department. The UGC’s lack of professional, independent administrative staff, in influence of the slow-moving Government Rule machinery has hindered its ability to regulate a 21st-century education market.[5]
Room for Misinterpretation: Because the Commission determines the terms and conditions for its own staff, there is a potential for internal opacity. Unlike the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which has constitutional safeguards, the UGC’s staff is largely under the control of the Commission members themselves. This can lead to a revolving door where retired university vice-chancellors or professors are appointed to staff positions without rigorous external competitive exams. NEP 2020 recommended for a more professionalized and independent Staffing model to remove the colonial-era dependency on the Ministry’s rule-making for every administrative detail.[6]
[1] UGC v. Sadhana Chaudhary [996 INSC 1061]
[2] S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [(1981) 3 SCC 431]
[3] “India Three Year Action Agenda 2017-18 TO 2019-20”, The NITI Aayog,
[4] P. Suseela & Ors. Vs. Univ. Grants Commn. & Ors. [8 SCC 129]
[5] Report of ‘The Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education’, Yash Pal Committee Report, March 2009
[6] The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020
