SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Amit Mahajan, JJ
SUNIL KUMAR TIWARI AND ORS. – Appellant
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-9163/2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kumar Rajesh Singh, Punam Singh, Purnima Jain, Awadesh Kumar, Madhur
For the Respondents: Avnish Ahlawat, Uday Singh Ahlawat, Tania Ahlawat, Nitesh Kumar Singh, Aliza Alam, Mohnish Sehrawat, B.S. Rawat, Pearl Sharma

The court held that requiring a PhD for higher Academic Grade Pay (AGP Rs.10,000) for Lecturers (Selection Grade) is not discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16, as it is a rational classification by an expert body to encourage higher qualifications.

Headnote:(A) All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 - Section 10(1)(i) - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - AICTE (Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Diploma)) Regulations, 2010 - AICTE (Career Advancement Scheme for the Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions) (Diploma) Regulations, 2012 - Clarification dated 04.01.2016 - Clause 3.9 - Prescription of Ph.D. as eligibility for grant of Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs.10,000 to Lecturers (Selection Grade) - Whether arbitrary and discriminatory - Rational classification - Nexus to object of enhancing academic standards - Judicial restraint in interfering with expert statutory bodies. (Paras 5, 7, 16, 19-23)

(B) Service Law - Career Advancement Scheme - Differentiation between Ph.D. and non-Ph.D. teachers - Permissible under Articles 14 and 16 - Entitlement to higher pay based on higher qualifications - Not violative of equality. (Paras 20-21)

(C) Judicial Review - Scope in academic matters - Courts not to substitute own views - Limited to perversity, illegality, arbitrariness - Reliance on All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (2025) 6 SCC 605 and AICTE vs. Surender Kumar Dhawan (2009) 11 SCC 726. (Paras 16, 20-21)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, appointed as Lecturers between 1989 and 1999 in government polytechnics under GNCTD, earned career advancements and are presently Lecturers (Selection Grade) with AGP Rs.9,000, but do not possess Ph.D. They challenged the AICTE Clarification dated 04.01.2016 (Clause 3.9) which granted AGP Rs.10,000 only to Lecturers (Selection Grade)/HODs possessing Ph.D. and completing three years of service in AGP Rs.9,000. The Tribunal dismissed their original applications. Petitioners filed writ petitions. (Paras 3-5, 11-12)

Findings of Court:
The distinction introduced by Clause 3.9 of the 2016 Clarification is rationally connected to the objective of encouraging higher academic qualifications and improving educational standards. The differentiation between Ph.D. and non-Ph.D. Lecturers is neither arbitrary nor violative of Articles 14 and 16. The prescription falls within the statutory discretion of AICTE, an expert body, and courts should be slow to interfere. The judgment in Ashok Kumar (supra) is distinguishable as it dealt with vested rights in promotion. (Paras 19-23)

Issues: Whether the prescription of Ph.D. as an essential eligibility condition for consideration of Lecturers (Selection Grade) for grant of AGP of Rs.10,000 is arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Para 5)

Ratio Decidendi: The distinction between teachers with Ph.D. and those without for purposes of pay and career progression is valid and falls within the domain of the statutory expert body. Such classification is rational and has a nexus with the object of enhancing academic standards, and does not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. (Paras 19, 21, 23)

Result: Writ petitions dismissed. (Para 27)

JUDGMENT

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present Writ Petitions, preferred by the Petitioners, assail the correctness of common judgment dated 20.07.2018 in W.P.(C) 9163/2018 and W.P.(C) 2446/2019 as well as judgment dated 27.07.2018 in W.P.(C) 1696/2019 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Orders’] passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’], whereby Original Applications bearing O.A. No. 3545/2017 and O.A. No. 4128/2018 were dismissed.

2. Since the Writ Petitions arise out of a similar set of facts, involve identical questions of law, and assail the aforesaid common Impugned Orders, they are being heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The Petitioners were appointed as Lecturers by way of direct recruitment during the period between the years 1989 and 1999 in various Government Polytechnics/Institutions under the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. Over the years, they earned career advancements and are presently working as Lecturers (Selection Grade). It is not in dispute that the Petitioners have been placed in Selection Grade/Stage-IV and are drawing pay in the pay band of Rs.37,400-67,000/- with Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs.9,000/-. Admittedly, the Petitioners do not possess a Ph.D. degree.

4. The grievance of the Petitioners arises on account of the fact that certain Lecturers, including private Respondents No.4 and 5, who are stated to be junior to the Petitioners in service but who possess a Ph.D. qualification, have been granted the higher AGP of Rs.10,000/-. The Petitioners, on the other hand, being non-Ph.D. holders, continue to draw AGP of Rs.9,000/-. According to the Petitioners, the prescription of Ph.D. as an essential eligibility condition for placement in AGP of Rs.10,000/- is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. Consequently, the issue which arises for consideration in these Writ Petitions is whether the prescription of a Ph.D. degree as an eligibility criterion for consideration of Lecturers (Selection Grade/Stage-IV), pay band of Rs.37,400-67,000/- with AGP of Rs.9,000/-, for grant of AGP of Rs.10,000/- is arbitrary, discriminatory, or otherwise illegal under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?

FACTUAL MATRIX

6. To appreciate the controversy involved in these Writ Petitions, it is necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts as emerging from the record.

7. The All India Council for Technical Education [hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE’] is a statutory body, initially constituted in the year 1945 as an Advisory Body to the Government of India. It was subsequently accorded statutory status under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE Act’]. AICTE derives its powers and functions from Section 10 of the AICTE Act, which, inter alia, empowers it to lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality of instruction, assessment, and examinations. For convenience, the same reads as under:-

“ 10. Functions of the Council. (1) It shall be the duty of the Couneil 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—

* * *

(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations;"

8. In exercise of its statutory powers, AICTE prescribes the qualifications, service conditions, and pay scales for teachers in technical institutions, which include Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, and Professors in Engineering and other technical colleges. Pursuant thereto, AICTE issued the AICTE (Pay Scales, S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top