The main legal principle established in the judgment is the supremacy of AICTE Regulations in regulating the qualifications and method of appointment of teaching staff in technical institutions, particularly in maintaining standards of technical education.

JUDGMENT

Gopinath, J.

These Original Petitions have been filed challenging the common order dated 9.12.2019 in Original Application Nos.1417 and 1578 of 2019 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The applicants before the Tribunal were persons included in a ranked list prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission for selection to the post of Lecturers in Technical streams in Polytechnics under the Technical Education Department. They had approached the Tribunal contending that in terms of the AICTE Regulations on Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Minimum Qualifications For Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff such as Library and Physical Education Personnel in Technical Institutions and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Technical Education – (Diploma) Regulation, 2019, (the 2019 Regulations) Lecturers in Polytechnic could be appointed only through direct recruitment in spite of the fact that the Special Rules namely, Kerala Technical Education Service Rules, 1967, after its amendment through the Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2010, provided that the post of Lecturer in Engineering/Technology could be filled up by direct recruitment and through appointment by transfer from the categories mentioned in those Rules in a specified ratio. The Tribunal accepted the contentions of the applicants before it and held that the recruitment to the post of Lecturer could only be by direct recruitment. This finding of the Tribunal is under challenge before us.

2. We have heard Sri. Elvin Peter P.J and Sri.Ayyappan Sankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Raghul Sudheesh for the party respondents (applicants before the Tribunal), Sri. V. Sajith Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for All India Council for Technical Education, Sri. B. Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the Government of Kerala and Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit inter alia that the finding of the Tribunal is absolutely unsustainable in law. They would contend with reference to the provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (the AICTE Act) that the provisions of that enactment make it clear that while AICTE has the power to fix the qualifications required for appointment to the teaching posts in Technical Institutions, that power does not extend to specifying the source from which such recruitment is to be made. They contend that such stipulations in the AICTE Regulations must not be taken to be binding or mandatory and cannot, at any rate, operate in the face of the Special Rules which have been framed in terms of Article 309 of the Constitution of India r/w provisions of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968. They contend further that the applicants before the Tribunal, relying on a Regulation issued on 1.3.2019, which admittedly has no retrospective operation, cannot contend for the position that all vacancies must be filled up from the Rank List when the notifications inviting applications was issued much prior to that date. In other words, they contend that at the time when the notifications were issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission pursuant to which the applicants before the Tribunal were selected and included in the rank list, the Rules clearly provided that the appointment to the post of Lecturer would be by direct recruitment and also by transfer from categories mentioned in the Rule in the ratio of 13:7. According to then, at any rate, vacancies which arose prior to 1.3.2019 have to be filled up in accordance with the stipulations in the Special Rules. Sri. Elvin Peter P.J places a specific reliance on the judgment of the Supreme court in Jagadish Prasad Sharma and others v. State of Bihar and others; (2013) 8 SCC 633 and contends that the law laid down therein makes it clear that the terms and conditi