$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:08.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 20.01.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 20.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 9163/2018, CM APPL. 35328/2018 and CM APPL.

13817/2022 SUNIL KUMAR TIWARI AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh & Ms.

Punam Singh, Advs. (M:

9811013515)

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel-GNCTD (Services), Mr. Uday Singh Ahlawat, Mrs. Tania Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs. for R-1/GNCTD (M:

9313964463)

Mr. B.S. Rawat, CI/DTTE for R-2 (M: 9868747374)

Ms. Pearl Sharma, Adv. for R-

3/AICTE (M: 9810961327)

+ W.P.(C) 1696/2019 RAGINI GUPTA & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Purnima Jain, Mr.

Awadesh Kumar, & Mr. Madhur, Advs. (M:

9873211671)

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel-GNCTD (Services), Mr. Uday Singh Ahlawat, Mrs. Tania Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs. for R-1/GNCTD (M:

9313964463)

Mr. B.S. Rawat, CI/DTTE for R-2 (M: 9868747374)

Ms. Pearl Sharma, Adv. for R-

3/AICTE (M: 9810961327)

+ W.P.(C) 2446/2019 SHAHEEDA BEGUM QURESHI & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Purnima Jain, Mr.

Awadesh Kumar, & Mr. Madhur, Advs. (M:

9873211671)

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel-GNCTD (Services), Mr. Uday Singh Ahlawat, Mrs. Tania Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs. for R-1/GNCTD (M:

9313964463)

Mr. B.S. Rawat, CI/DTTE for R-2 (M: 9868747374)

Ms. Pearl Sharma, Adv. for R-

3/AICTE (M: 9810961327)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

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/