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