1. Challenge to State Rule allowing Ph.D. acquisition within 7 years for Assistant Professors. High Court struck it down; Supreme Court reversed. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2016 Supreme(SC) 1758
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, S.A. Bobde, JJ.
Christy James Jose And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Kerala & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4604 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 28965 of 2014), Civil Appeal No. 4605 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 28968 of 2014), Civil Appeal No. 4606 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 36486 of 2014), Civil Appeal Nos. 4607-4608 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 36482-36483 of 2014) , Civil Appeal No. 4609 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6952 of 2015), Civil Appeal No. 4610 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6951 of 2015)
Decided On : 26-04-2016
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mathai M. Paikaday, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anas Shamnad, Adv., Mr. K Ramesh, Adv., Mr. Shishir Pinaki, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Jain,Adv., Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Mr. Dileep Pillai, Adv., Mr. Ajay K. Jain, Adv., Mr. Atul Shankar Vinod, Adv., Mr. M.P. Vinod, Adv., Mr. Roy Ahbraham, adv., Ms. Reena Roy, Adv., Ms. Seema Jain, Adv., Ms. Chandrani Prasad, Adv., Mr. Himinder Lal,Adv., Mr. Jayant Muth Raj, Adv., Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker,Adv., Ms. Anu K. Roy, Adv., Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker,Adv., Ms. Anu K. Roy, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R.,Adv., Mr. B.R. Mohan Kumar, Adv., Ms. V.P. Seemanthani, Sr. Adv., Mr. S. Radhakrishnan, Adv., Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, Adv., Mrs. Sudha Gupta,Adv., Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P,Adv., Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv., Mr. Anil Soni, Adv., Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Adv., Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv., Ms. V. Gaur, Adv., Mr. M.T.George, Adv., Mr. Saurab Bhargava, Adv., Mr. V.K. Sidharthan, Adv., Mr. Nishad L.S., Adv., Mr. Maneesh N., Adv.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mathai M. Paikaday, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anas Shamnad, Adv., Mr. K Ramesh, Adv., Mr. Shishir Pinaki, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Jain,Adv., Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Mr. Dileep Pillai, Adv., Mr. Ajay K. Jain, Adv., Mr. Atul Shankar Vinod, Adv., Mr. M.P. Vinod, Adv., Mr. Roy Ahbraham, adv., Ms. Reena Roy, Adv., Ms. Seema Jain, Adv., Ms. Chandrani Prasad, Adv., Mr. Himinder Lal,Adv., Mr. Jayant Muth Raj, Adv., Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker,Adv., Ms. Anu K. Roy, Adv., Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker,Adv., Ms. Anu K. Roy, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R.,Adv., Mr. B.R. Mohan Kumar, Adv., Ms. V.P. Seemanthani, Sr. Adv., Mr. S. Radhakrishnan, Adv., Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, Adv., Mrs. Sudha Gupta,Adv., Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P,Adv., Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv., Mr. Anil Soni, Adv., Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Adv., Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv., Ms. V. Gaur, Adv., Mr. M.T.George, Adv., Mr. Saurab Bhargava, Adv., Mr. V.K. Sidharthan, Adv., Mr. Nishad L.S., Adv., Mr. Maneesh N., Adv.
The power to prescribe staff qualifications for technical education rests with the regulatory body. A state rule mirroring such notifications is valid. Non-acquisition of a required qualification within a stipulated period leads to stoppage of increments, not termination, if so prescribed by the regulator.
Headnote:(A) All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 - Section 10(1)(i) - Qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Engineering Colleges - State government’s rule allowing acquisition of Ph.D. within seven years of appointment - Conflict with regulatory notifications - Power of the regulatory body to prescribe and modify staff qualifications to maintain standards of education - If the state rule is in consonance with the regulatory body's notifications, it cannot be struck down as contrary to the Act. (Paras 11, 12)
(B) Service Law - Promotion and qualification - Persons appointed prior to the introduction of a new minimum qualification are protected - Substantial compliance through subsequent acquisition of the required degree and subsequent notifications by the regulatory body allowing continuation in service prevents interference with promotions. (Paras 13, 14)
(C) Regulatory Compliance - Effect of failure to acquire required qualification within stipulated time - If the regulatory body prescribes that failure to acquire the degree within a certain period leads only to stoppage of increments, such failure cannot be a ground for terminating the appointment. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The state government introduced a rule exempting candidates from possessing a Ph.D. degree at the time of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, provided the degree was acquired within seven years of appointment. The High Court struck down this rule, holding it conflicted with the regulatory body's requirement for a Ph.D. as a minimum qualification. Upon appeal, evidence was produced showing the regulatory body had issued a notification allowing for the acquisition of the Ph.D. within seven years.
Findings of Court:
The state government's rule was found to be in tune with the regulatory body's specific notification. Consequently, the rule did not conflict with the prescriptions of the governing Act. For individuals promoted before the Ph.D. requirement was introduced or those who acquired it subsequently, their appointments were upheld based on regulatory notifications and the principle of substantial compliance.
Issues: Whether the state government's rule allowing the acquisition of a Ph.D. within seven years of appointment was contrary to the minimum qualifications prescribed by the regulatory body under the governing Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to prescribe or modify staff qualifications to maintain educational standards rests with the regulatory body under the Act. Since the state rule mirrored the regulatory body's own notification allowing a seven-year window for acquiring a Ph.D., there was no conflict. Furthermore, subsequent notifications by the regulatory body indicated that non-acquisition of the degree results in stoppage of increments rather than removal from service.
Result: The appeals are accordingly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- education law
- service law
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argued State rule consistent with AICTE notification of 18.02.2003; respondents argued it diluted minimum Ph.D. qualification. (Para 8 , 11 )
3. AICTE notification dated 18.02.2003 permitted Ph.D. acquisition within 7 years; State Rule 6A(2) was identical and not in conflict. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Power to prescribe qualifications for technical education vests solely with AICTE under Section 10(1)(i); State rule consistent with AICTE notification is valid. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside; appointments of appellants held valid under AICTE norms. (Para 17 , 18 )
6. Does AICTE have exclusive power to prescribe qualifications for technical education?
Yes, under Section 10(1)(i) of AICTE Act, AICTE alone can prescribe or modify staff qualifications. State cannot prescribe contrary qualifications. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. Was the Kerala Rule 6A(2) in conflict with AICTE norms?
No, because AICTE notification dated 18.02.2003 itself allowed Ph.D. acquisition within 7 years. The State rule was identical. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. What is the consequence if an Assistant Professor fails to acquire Ph.D. within 7 years?
As per AICTE notification dated 04.01.2016, increments are stopped until Ph.D. is earned; appointment is not terminated. (Para 15 , 16 )
9. Are appointments made prior to the AICTE notification requiring Ph.D. valid?
Yes, such appointees can continue, and those who later acquire Ph.D. are protected. (Para 13 , 14 )
ORDER :
1. Applications for deletion of the names of respondents are allowed at the risk of the petitioners.
2. Application(s) for impleadment is/are allowed.
3. Leave granted.
4. In all these appeals, the question for our consideration is the correctness or otherwise of the common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No. 2706 of 2009 and the connected appeals affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single Judge struck down Rule 6 A of the Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2004. To trace out the brief history of the litigation, initially the qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Engineering Colleges in Kerala were governed by the special Rules which were in vogue right from 02.09.1967. Rule 6 read with the annexures to the Special Rules prescribed the qualification as under:
“Post-graduate Degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering, viz. Civil Mechanical/Electrical/Telecommunication] or an equivalent qualification and a total of three year' teaching experience in Engineering Colleges”.
5. In 1987, All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short, the AICTE Act”) was enacted by the Parliament which governs the Technical Education throughout the country. By proceedings dated 28.02.1989, the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, approved the recommendation of AICTE which prescribed the qualification for the post of Assistant Professor. The qualification was noted as under :
“First Class Master's Degree in appropriate branch of engineering/Technology with 5 years experience in teaching/ industry/ research at the appropriate level. Ph.D. degree in degree in engineering/Technology was prescribed as a desirable qualification.”
The said qualification prescribed by AICTE was adopted by the Government of Kerala, by its notification dated 27.03.1990. Thereafter, AICTE modified the qualification by notification dated 15.03.2000 and communicated the same to all the State Governments. As per the modified qualification, Ph.D. degree with first class degree at Bachelor's or Master's level in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology was the required qualification. In tune with the said modified qualification, the Government of Kerala amended the Special Rules by its proceedings dated 24.01.2003. BY its notification dated 18.02.2003, the AICTE made a modification by way of a revision of the eligibility condition for the post of Assistant Professor as per which the qualification prescribed was as under :
“Ph.D. degree with first class Degree at Bachelor's or Master's level in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology with 3 years experience in Teaching/Industry/Research at the level of Lecturer or equivalent.”
Such modified eligibility condition was reiterated by AICTE in its proceedings dated 10.09.2003.
6. The Government of Kerala came forward with its amendment to the special Rules on 18.09.2004 by which Rule 6A came to be inserted in the special Rules. We are concerned with Sub Rule (2) of Rule 6A which reads as under :
“ 6A(2) Candidates applying for the post of Assistant Professor are exempted from possessing Ph.D. Degree but they have to acquiare Ph.D. Degree with seven years of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor as stipulated by the All India Council for Technical Education.”
7. The whole of the amended Rule 6A came to be challenged before the High Court in various writ petitions, namely writ petitions Nos. 4468 of 2005, 20554/2008, 23490/2008, 27289/2008, 31862/2008, 31886/2008.
8. Before the learned Single Judge, a submission was made that the prescription made in the newly added special Rule 6A was in conflict with the qualification prescribed by the AICTE in its notification dated 15.03.2000 and consequently all appointments made to the post of Assistant Professor based on the amended Special Rule were liable to be set aside. The nomenclature was revised
