AICTE Regulations must prevail in matters regarding qualifications and promotions of university staff over conflicting state orders.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are stated to be Professors working with the 3^rd respondent - Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT). They are teaching in the Technical Departments under CUSAT. All India Council for Technical Education Regulations, 2019, (for short ‘AICTE Regulations’) provided for the pay scales, service conditions, and minimum qualifications for the appointment of teachers and the other academic staff working under the various Technical Institutes under the Universities. Under Regulation 1.4 of the AICTE regulations, up to 01.01.2016, the qualification, experience, requirement and promotions required to be governed by the AICTE pay scales, service conditions, qualifications etc., as prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institution (Degree) Regulation, 2010, and the subsequent notifications issued from time to time. Under Table 1 of Regulation 2.1, serial No.6, of Ext.P3 the designation of “Senior Professor” was also included, wherein the mode of appointment was shown as “promotion”. However, Regulations at Ext.P3 came to be implemented by the State by the issue of Ext.P4 dated 31.03.2020, which was cancelled and substituted by Ext.P6 dated 02.02.2021, and though the post of “Senior Professor” was included, the mode of appointment was shown as to be governed by the Kerala Technical Education Special Rules/APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Statute. This was pointed out as an anomaly by those affected and later, the State Government sought to correct the same by issuing the Government Order at Ext.P8 dated 16.02.2021. However, while issuing the notification as above, the post of “Senior Professor” was omitted also continuing to state that the mode of appointment would be the same as that was noticed in Ext.P6. Ext.P8 was also implemented by the Cochin University pursuant to the order at Ext.P9 dated 22.04.2021. The petitioners in such circumstances have approached this Court, pointing out that the orders at Exts.P8 as well as P9 require to be set aside insofar as they are repugnant and contrary to the AICTE Regulations, 2019. They also seek appropriate directions to the respondent University to promote them as Senior Professors with effect from the date on which they were entitled for such appointment.

2. I have heard Sri. A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University, as well as Smt.

Sylaja S.L., learned Government Pleader.

3. The issue arising for consideration is essentially as to whether the AICTE Regulations would prevail over the various Government Orders. The afore issue is not res integra and the Apex Court in Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. and Others [ 2022 KHC 7131 ], has categorically found that when the UGC Regulations are in conflict with the University Act, UGC Regulations will prevail. With reference to the superiority of the AICTE Regulations, the issue has been addressed by a Division Bench of this Court in OP (KAT) No.271 of 2020, wherein it has been categorically found that as under:-

“23. a. The Kerala Technical Education Service Rules framed by the State under Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with provisions of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 will be subject to Regulations framed by the AICTE regarding the qualifications, method of appointment etc. and the Rules framed by the State would, to the extent it is repugnant to the Central Act/Regulations, be void and i