The AICTE Act, particularly Section 10(1)(i), Section 23, and Section 24, provides for the enforceability of AICTE norms and their impact on the appointment and promotion of Professors in technical institutions.

ORDER :

C.A. No. 4502 of 2016 @ SLP(C) No. 7556 of 2014

Leave granted.

2. Application for impleadment is allowed.

3. The Civil Appeal is disposed of in terms of the order dated 26.4.2016 passed in SLP(C) No.28965/2014 and batch.

4. The said order shall hold good for this appeal as well.

C.A. NO. 4503 of 2016 @ SLP(C) No. 6953 of 2015

1. Leave granted.

2-3. This appeal is directed against the common judgment of the Division Bench dated 16.12.2013 in Writ Appeal No.2706 of 2009 which arose out of WP(C) No.31862 of 2008 along with other connected appeals.

4. The Division Bench affirmed the common judgment dated 6.10.2009 of the Learned Single Judge passed in WP(C) No.31862 of 2008 and other connected cases. In fact, appellant-Shaji T.L. was not a party either in the writ petition dealt with by the Learned Single Judge or in the writ appeal dealt with by the Division Bench. However, since he was affected by the impugned judgment, he was granted leave to move the special leave petition and that is how this appeal by way of special leave came to be entertained. When the appeal by way of special leave was pending, one Smt. C.P. Mrinalini, who claims to be identically placed like that of the appellant was impleaded as petitioner No.2 in the special leave petition, based on the order of this Court dated 26.10.2015.

5. The original appellant-Shaji T.L. was appointed as lecturer on 16.11.1989. At that point of time, he possessed a degree qualification of Bachelor of Architecture. In 1994, he acquired the post-graduate degree, namely, M. Tech. On 15.7.1998, he was promoted as Assistant Professor and subsequently, on 4.6.2009 further promoted as Professor as per Special Rule 6A(1), which relaxed the possession of required qualification, namely, Ph.D.

6. After the judgment of the Division Bench, when the appellants were reverted by order dated 16.12.2013 by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, the said reversion was stayed.

7. The appellant-Shaji T.L. and the impleaded appellant-C.P. Mrinalini are, thus, continuing in the post of Professor. So far as, Smt. Mrinalini is concerned, she came to be appointed as Assistant Professor on 29.6.1996 by virtue of her post-graduate qualification, namely, M.Tech. Her promotion to the post of Professor came to be made under the same order dated 4.6.2009.

8. To briefly state the issues involved in the present litigation, we find that prior to 15.3.2000, the minimum qualification required for the post of Assistant Professor was first class Master's Degree in appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology. For the first time, by notification dated 15.3.2000, the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, "the AICTE") which is the authority to lay down the various norms including the one pertaining to staff qualification prescribed the possession of Ph.D. with first class degree in Bachelor's or Master's level in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology as the minimum required qualification.

9. Prior to 28.2.1989, that is the date when the Government of India approved the prescription of qualifications, as recommended by the AICTE, the appointments and promotions were governed by the Special Rules prevailing in the State of Kerala which came to be formulated on 2.9.1967. After the enactment of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short, "the AICTE Act"), the whole of the technical education imparted by the various technical institutions were governed and controlled by the AICTE. The prescription of qualification, as approved by the Government of India on 28.2.1989, imperatively to be followed by all the technical institutions as well as the respective State Governments. The Government of Kerala issued G.O.(P) No.81/90/H.Edn. dated 27.3.1990 adopting the qualification prescribed in the Government of India in its direction dated 28.2.1989.

10. As stated earlier, there was a change in the prescription of qualification from mere possession of first class masters degree in appr