1. Dispute over entitlement to revised pay scales and redesignation as Associate Professors for technical teachers based on AICTE qualification norms. (Para 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 563
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sudhanshu Dhulia, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (Aissms) And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 4564-4567 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 7058-7061 of 2019]
With
The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS) – Appellant
Versus
Laxman Shivaji Godse & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 4568 of 2025 [ @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 4787 of 2025]
Decided On : 01-04-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Kriti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Kriti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AOR Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Ms. Aagam Kaur, Adv. Mr. Kartikey, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yeshwant Kulkarni, AOR Mr. Sneha Botwe, Adv. Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, AOR Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv. Ms. Subhi Pastor, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Y Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Mehrotra, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Kriti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Kriti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AOR Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Ms. Aagam Kaur, Adv. Mr. Kartikey, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yeshwant Kulkarni, AOR Mr. Sneha Botwe, Adv. Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, AOR Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv. Ms. Subhi Pastor, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Y Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Mehrotra, Adv.
The court affirmed that teachers appointed after the Ph.D. requirement cannot claim higher pay or designation if they fail to acquire the qualification within the stipulated time, emphasizing adherence to AICTE regulations.
Headnote:(A) All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 - Sections 3 and 10 - Civil Appeals challenging orders of Bombay High Court regarding pay scales for teachers - Respondent-teachers appointed as Lecturers/Assistant Professors without Ph.D. qualification - Court held that those appointed before 15.03.2000 are entitled to benefits under the 6th Pay Commission, while those appointed after are not due to failure to acquire Ph.D. within stipulated time. (Paras 12, 17, 27)
(B) Educational Qualifications - The court emphasized the importance of qualifications prescribed by expert bodies like AICTE, stating that courts should refrain from interfering unless qualifications are arbitrary or perverse. (Paras 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-Society challenged the Bombay High Court's orders directing it to extend revised pay scales to Respondent-teachers who were appointed between 1995 and 2009, with most failing to acquire Ph.D. within seven years as required by AICTE regulations.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that teachers appointed before 15.03.2000 are entitled to the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission, while those appointed after without Ph.D. cannot be designated as Associate Professors or receive higher pay scales.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Respondent-teachers were qualified for the benefits under the 6th Pay Commission and the applicability of prior judgments regarding qualifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the qualifications set by AICTE are statutory and must be adhered to, and those failing to meet them cannot claim higher pay or designation. The distinction between teachers appointed before and after the Ph.D. requirement was crucial.
Result: Civil Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether teachers lacking mandatory PhD qualifications are entitled to higher pay scales and redesignation, and the legal effect of clarificatory notifications on service conditions. (Para 12 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
3. Expert statutory bodies' academic qualifications are binding unless arbitrary; clarificatory notifications cannot surreptitiously amend regulations; non-completion of mandatory PhD precludes higher pay scale benefits. (Para 16 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
4. Teachers appointed after mandatory PhD requirements were introduced must possess said qualification to be considered eligible incumbents for higher pay scales and redesignation. (Para 24 , 27 )
5. Higher pay scales granted to teachers appointed before mandatory PhD norms or those who acquired PhD; benefits denied to others who failed to obtain PhD. (Para 28 , 30 )
6. To what extent can courts interfere with qualifications prescribed by expert statutory bodies for academic appointments?
Courts should generally not interfere with decisions of expert statutory bodies regarding academic standards, qualifications for appointment, or promotions unless the prescriptions are shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or against the law. (Para 25 )
7. What is the legal status of a clarificatory notification if it does not remedy an actual ambiguity in the original regulations?
A clarificatory notification cannot be used as a surreptitious tool to achieve the ends of an amending notification. If no ambiguity exists in the original regulations, the clarificatory notification merely reiterates the existing position of law. (Para 21 , 22 )
8. How should the term incumbent Assistant Professor be interpreted regarding mandatory qualifications for pay scale revisions?
The term includes only those who possess the essential qualifications, including a PhD, or those appointed before such qualifications were made mandatory, provided they continued service uninterruptedly. (Para 24 , 27 )
JUDGMENT
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. By means of the Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.7058-7061 of 2019, the appellant-Society seeks to challenge the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 17.07.2017 as well as the order dated 22.12.2018, passed in review later. The impugned orders of the High Court direct the appellant-Society to extend the benefit of revised pay scales under the 6th Central Pay Commission to the Respondent-teachers, who were the original Writ Petitioners before the Bombay High Court. The Respondent-teachers are the ones who are presently teaching in engineering and technical institutes run and managed by the Appellant-Society, which is a private body and is not under the grant in aid of the Government.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent-teachers, who possess a Master’s degree in their field, were appointed as Lecturers/Assistant Professors by the appellant-Society in the institutes between 1995 and 2009. Requisite approval for their appointment was taken from the concerned Universities to which the said institutes were affiliated. It is also an admitted fact that the Respondent-teachers, with the exception of one teacher, were not able to acquire Ph.D.’s within seven years of their appointment in service, as was required.
4. At this stage, we may need to refer to the prescribed qualification of teachers in an Engineering Institute, which is laid down by the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE’). AICTE is a body which was initially constituted in the year 1945 as an advisory body to the Government of India but was given a statutory status under the All India Council for Technical Education Act of 1987 (for short ‘1987 Act’) and we now can trace its formation as a Statutory Body under Section 3 of the 1987 Act. Its powers and functions are given under Section 10 of the 1987 Act, which read as under:
“10. Functions of the Council.— (1) It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may—
x x x
(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations;”
5. Thus, under the powers referred above, AICTE is mandated to provide qualifications for teachers that would include Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors, of Engineering and Technical Colleges.
6. It is an admitted position by both the sides here that the crucial date when Ph.D. was prescribed for the first time as a qualification for Lecturers/Assistant Professors is 15.03.2000. Prior to 15.03.2000, Ph.D. was not an essential and mandatory qualification for Lecturers/Assistant Professors. Out of the nine private respondents before us, who were also petitioners before the High Court, four were appointed prior to 15.03.2000 and the remaining five were appointed post 15.03.2000, when the notification dated 15.03.2000 had come into effect.
7. The subject matter of the notification dated 15.03.2000 reads as under:
“AICTE NOTIFICATION ON REVISION OF PAY-SCALES AND ASSOCIATED TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF TEACHERS, LIBRARIANS AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL FOR DEGREE LEVEL TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS.”
The above notification of AICTE prescribed minimum qualification for various teaching posts in degree level technical institutes and further prescribed qualifications for Assistant Professor as follows:
| Appendix-E Table E-1 MINIMUM QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE PRESCRIBED FOR TEACHING POST IN DEGREE LEVEL TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY DISCIPLINES | ||||
| SI. No. | CADRE | QUALIFICATION | EXPERIENCE | QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE FOR CANDIDATES |
