Career advancement, specifically the counting of past service for financial progression, requires strict adherence to mandatory academic qualifications prescribed by the regulatory body. Courts cannot supply relaxations or waive statutory educational thresholds, as deficits in minimum qualifications fundamentally preclude eligibility for promotion schemes.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

INTRODUCTION

1. The Petitioner, by way of the present Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the final order dated 03.04.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 1030/2015. By way of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal dismissed the Petitioner’s claim for the preponement of his senior time scale under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS).

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The Petitioner graduated with a second-class degree in B.E. (Electrical and Electronics) from the University of Mysore in 1987. She was appointed as a Lecturer at K.V.G. Polytechnic, Sullia, Karnataka, on 04.10.1991.

3. The Petitioner served at K.V.G. Polytechnic until 16.04.2001, after which he joined the services of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) at Aryabhatt Polytechnic on 20.04.2001. While in service, the Petitioner furthered his academic qualifications by completing his Master of Technology (M.Tech) with a first-division degree from Jamia Millia Islamia in 2007.

4. On 20.04.2007, upon completing six years of regular service with the GNCTD, the Petitioner was granted the senior time scale. Subsequently, vide notification dated 08.09.2011, Respondent No. 2 (Directorate of Training and Technical Education) provided for preponement of the senior scale based on past service records. The Petitioner sought the benefit of this preponement by requesting that his continuous service at K.V.G. Polytechnic (1991–2001) be counted toward CAS, as stipulated in the AICTE notifications dated 20.09.1989 and 30.12.1999.

5. This claim was rejected by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 12.12.2014, on the grounds that the Petitioner held only a second-class degree, whereas a first-class degree was purportedly a mandatory prerequisite for CAS. The Petitioner challenged this rejection before the learned Tribunal, which, vide the impugned order dated 03.04.2019, upheld the Respondents' decision, leading to the present writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously argued that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the relaxation contained in Clause 5.0(3) of the AICTE Notification dated 30.12.1999. She submitted that this clause explicitly provides that the qualifications applicable at the time of teacher's initial appointment shall govern their eligibility for CAS. Since the Petitioner was duly appointed in 1991 when a second-class degree was sufficient, he remains eligible for the scheme's benefits.

7. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal erroneously relied upon the general conditions of a later 2016 Notification to override the specific saving clause of the 1999 Notification. The Petitioner’s counsel relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in Nandlal Gangarambhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Others, C/SCA/2918/2015 and a coordinate bench decision of the CAT in S.C. Jain v. GNCT of Delhi & Others, both of which recognized the principle of relaxation for teachers recruited prior to 01.01.1996.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

8. Conversely, learned counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned order, asserting that the maintenance of high academic st