Service Law – Movement to a higher pay scale – When not entitled to – All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 – Vide notification dated 15.03.2000, Ph.D. was made a mandatory qualification for Lecturers/Assistant Professors for the first time – Respondents appointed after 15.03.2000, who were non-Ph.D. and had also failed to acquire the same within seven years of appointment as was required under a subsequent notification of 2005, if entitled to the benefits of 2010 notification prescribing the pay structure and redesignation of Assistant Professors:
Held: No – Respondents appointed after 15.03.2000, who were non-Ph.D. and had also failed to acquire the same within seven years of appointment as was required, cannot be given the benefit of 2010 notification inasmuch as they cannot be given a higher pay scale or re-designated as an Associate Professor – ‘incumbent Assistant Professor’ in the 2010 notification only includes such Assistant Professors working on the post who had a Ph.D. qualification at the time of their appointment or who though did not have a Ph.D. qualification at the time of their appointment but subsequently in terms of the notification dated 15.03.2000 r/w subsequent notification dated 28.11.2005 acquired Ph.D. within seven years of their appointment or those appointed prior to 15.03.2000; when Ph.D. was not an essential qualification, continued uninterruptedly. [Para 27]
Judicial review – Of decisions of expert bodies in academic matters like qualification for admission of students; qualifications required by teachers for appointment; salary; promotion, entitlement to a higher pay scale etc. – Qualification for teachers in Engineering Institutes prescribed by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) – Ph.D. made an essential qualification:
Held: AICTE which is an expert body mandated by law to prescribe essential qualifications for a teaching post, and hence, this Court cannot question the logic and wisdom of this expert body which prescribes the essential qualifications for these posts – The responsibility of fixing qualifications for purposes of appointment, promotion etc. of staff or qualifications for admissions, is that of expert bodies (AICTE in the present case), and so long as qualifications prescribed are not shown to be arbitrary or perverse, the Courts will not interfere – The qualification of Ph.D. has not been challenged in this case on the ground that it should not have been made an essential qualification – Further, in the present case, the law not only prescribes qualifications but also gives the consequences of not having these qualifications – There is nothing arbitrary in such prescriptions – Thus, courts must be slow in interfering with the opinion of experts in regard to academic standards – Powers of judicial review should only be exercised in cases where prescribed qualification or condition is against the law, arbitrary or involves interpretation of any principle of law – All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. [Paras 24, 25]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.