Supreme Court clarifies Career Advancement Scheme for NIT teachers: National Institute of Technology vs. Om Prakash Rahi (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 30 March 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 270
Judges: Ajay Rastogi, J. and Abhay S. Oka, J.
Can a director of a National Institute of Technology (NIT) grant a higher pay scale and redesignate teachers as Associate Professors simply based on years of service? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the procedure for Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) promotions in NITs. This judgment clarifies that mere completion of service is not sufficient for promotion; a formal selection process is mandatory. The bench comprised of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case involves teachers at the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Hamirpur, who were initially appointed as Lecturers in 2000. Over time, they were promoted to Lecturer (Senior Scale) in 2005 and then to Assistant Professors in 2006 and 2010. In 2013, they were placed in the AGP of Rs. 8000. Subsequently, the Director of NIT, Hamirpur, granted them a higher pay band with AGP of Rs. 9000 and redesignated them as Associate Professors, based solely on their completion of three years of service in the AGP of Rs. 8000. This action was taken without a formal selection process or approval from the Board of Governors, which led to the dispute. The Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) did not approve of the redesignation. The respondent teachers then approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which ruled in their favor.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh upheld the decision of the Director of NIT, Hamirpur, stating that the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) was not the competent authority to issue guidelines after the National Institute of Technology Act, 2007, came into force. The High Court also noted that the recruitment rules for teachers in NITs were only incorporated in 2017. The High Court directed the appellants to consider the respondent teachers for promotion to the post of Professor. Aggrieved by this decision, the National Institute of Technology appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework includes the National Institute of Technology Act, 2007, which governs the functioning of NITs. Section 26(1) of the Act empowers the Central Government to make statutes for NITs. The Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) issued guidelines on 18th August, 2009, for the revision of pay and redesignation of teachers in Centrally Funded Technical Institutions, including NITs. These guidelines specified the conditions for moving to higher AGP (Academic Grade Pay) levels. Further guidelines were issued on 14th March, 2012, clarifying that the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) in NITs is governed by MHRD guidelines and not by AICTE or UGC. The guidelines of 2012 also mandated that promotions under CAS must be based on a formal selection process.

The relevant legal provisions are:

• The National Institute of Technology Act, 2007, particularly Section 26(1), which grants the power to the Central Government to make statutes for NITs.
• MHRD guidelines dated 18th August, 2009, which provide for revision of pay and redesignation of teachers in Centrally Funded Technical Institutions.
  “The pay structure and designations for all other Centrally Funded Technical Institutions will generally be the same as per the scheme of revision of pay of teachers, etc. in Universities, etc. as notified by the Ministry of HRD vide letter No. 1-32/2006-U.II/UI(i) dated 31st December, 2008 and clarification issued thereon from time to time. However, in the case of National Institutes of Technology(NITs), Indian School of Mines University(ISMU), Indian Institutes of Information Technology(IIITs) and Schools of Planning & Architecture(SPAs), the following accelerated promotional benefits will be given while maintaining the UGC pay structure and designations”
• MHRD guidelines dated 14th March, 2012, which clarify that CAS in NITs is governed by MHRD guidelines and not by AICTE or UGC.
  “CAS has been in operation in institutions under guidelines provided by AICTE and UGC. It is clarified that those norms and procedures are not applicable to NITs. CAS in NITs will be governed by guidelines and regulations defined by the Ministry of HRD and the Council of NITs.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments (National Institute of Technology):

• The MHRD guidelines dated 31st December 2008, relied upon by the High Court, are not applicable to NITs.
• The first statute under Section 26(1) of the National Institute of Technology Act, 2007, was notified on 23rd April 2009, which did not include provisions for the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS).
• The CAS was introduced by the MHRD to address stagnation and hardship faced by teachers, and promotions under CAS should be on an ‘in-situ’ basis, without changing the work allocation.
• The appointments to AGP Rs. 8000 were made based on the recommendations of a duly constituted committee, as per the guidelines dated 14th March 2012 and 18th March 2013.
• The Director was not the competent authority to grant AGP Rs. 9000 and redesignate teachers as Associate Professors.
• The appointments made by the Director were subject to verification and approval by MHRD, which was not granted.
• The MHRD guidelines have a binding force as per Section 5(d) of the Act 2007.
• The respondent teachers cannot avail the benefit of AGP Rs. 8000 under the MHRD guidelines and then argue that the same guidelines do not apply for further AGP Rs. 9000 and redesignation.

Respondents’ Arguments (Teachers):

• The teachers’ merits were assessed by a committee, and they went through a selection process for the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS).
• Having been granted AGP Rs. 8000, they became entitled to AGP Rs. 9000 and redesignation as Associate Professor upon completing three years of service, as per MHRD guidelines dated 31st December 2008.
• The Director was the competent authority at the time.
• The High Court correctly upheld their redesignation, as it was in conformity with the MHRD guidelines dated 31st December 2008.
• The amendment to the statute in 2017, which introduced Schedule ‘E’ for qualifications and terms for academic staff, is prospective. Therefore, actions prior to this should be governed by the then-applicable MHRD guidelines.

The innovativeness in the argument by the appellants was that the MHRD guidelines, which were used by the respondent teachers to get the benefit of AGP Rs. 8000, should also be used for further AGP of Rs. 9000.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court dealt with was:

1. Whether the respondent teachers were entitled to the higher pay band of Rs. 37400-67000 with AGP Rs. 9000 and redesignation as Associate Professor merely on completion of three years of service in the AGP Rs. 8000, without undergoing a formal selection process and approval by the Board of Governors.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• MHRD guidelines dated 18th August, 2009, regarding the revision of pay for teaching staff in Centrally Funded Technical Institutions.
  • This guideline provided for accelerated promotional benefits for NITs while maintaining UGC pay structures and designations. It specified that an Assistant Professor with a Ph.D. and three years of service at AGP Rs. 8000 would be eligible for AGP Rs. 9000 and redesignation as Associate Professor.
• MHRD guidelines dated 14th March, 2012, clarifying that CAS in NITs is governed by MHRD guidelines, not AICTE or UGC.
  • This guideline clarified that the norms and procedures of AICTE and UGC are not applicable to NITs. It also stated that CAS in NITs will be governed by guidelines defined by the Ministry of HRD and the Council of NITs.
• The National Institute of Technology Act, 2007
  • The Act provides the legal framework for the functioning of NITs. Section 26(1) empowers the Central Government to make statutes for NITs.
• The statute notified on 23rd April, 2009, in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Act 2007.
  • This statute provided for making appointments to the post of teachers by direct recruitment/promotion pursuant to the constitution of a selection committee.
• The amendment to the statute by notification dated 21st July, 2017, incorporating Schedule ‘E’
  • This amendment laid down the qualifications and other terms and conditions for academic staff of NITs.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, holding that the Director of NIT, Hamirpur, was not authorized to grant the higher pay band and redesignation without a formal selection process. The court emphasized that the MHRD guidelines of 2012 clearly mandate a formal selection process for promotions under CAS, and that the guidelines of 31st December, 2008, were not applicable to NITs. The court also noted that the power to appoint teachers is vested with the Board of Governors, based on recommendations of the selection committee. The court highlighted that the respondent teachers had availed the benefit of AGP Rs. 8000 under the MHRD guidelines of 2012 and 2013 and could not claim that the same guidelines were not applicable for further promotion.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to maintain a structured and merit-based system for promotions in NITs. The Court emphasized the importance of following the established procedures and guidelines laid down by the MHRD. The Court was also concerned that the Director of NIT, Hamirpur, had overstepped his authority by granting promotions without following the prescribed selection process. The Court noted that the respondent teachers had availed benefits under the MHRD guidelines and could not argue that the same guidelines were not applicable for further promotions.

The court’s decision was primarily based on the legal interpretation of the NIT Act, 2007, and the MHRD guidelines.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered the argument that the MHRD guidelines of 31st December, 2008, were applicable, but rejected it, stating that these guidelines were not applicable to NITs. The court also considered the argument that the amendment to the statute in 2017 was prospective, but clarified that the applicable MHRD guidelines were those of 2009, 2012, and 2013. The court rejected the argument that the teachers were entitled to the higher pay band and redesignation based solely on completion of service, emphasizing that a formal selection process was mandatory.

The decision was that the respondent teachers were not entitled to the higher pay band of Rs. 37400-67000 with AGP Rs. 9000 and redesignation as Associate Professor merely on completion of three years of service in the AGP Rs. 8000, without undergoing a formal selection process and approval by the Board of Governors.

The court quoted from the judgment:

• “But while placing in the higher pay band of Rs. 37400-67000 with AGP Rs.9000 and re-designation as Associate Professor, no procedure was followed, neither selection committee was constituted nor their suitability was adjudged and also there is no approval of the Board of Governors which is the requirement of law under the Act 2007.”
• “The Division Bench of the High Court has proceeded on the premise that after the Act, 2007 has come into force, MHRD is not competent to issue circulars/guidelines of which a reference has been made dated 14th March, 2012 and 18th March 2013, which is completely misplaced for the reason that after the Act, 2007 came into force, the appellant-institution was taken over by the Central Government and being fully funded institution by the Central Government, the CAS was introduced by MHRD only to address the stagnation and hardship faced by the teachers and the Central Government has the power to issue the guidelines in exercise of its power under Section 5(d) of the Act, 2007.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in National Institute of Technology vs. Om Prakash Rahi (2022) clarified that the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for teachers in National Institutes of Technology (NITs) does not allow for automatic promotion to a higher pay band and redesignation upon completion of a certain number of years of service. The Court emphasized that a formal selection process, as per the MHRD guidelines, is mandatory for such promotions. The Director of NIT, Hamirpur, was deemed not to be the competent authority to grant such benefits without following the prescribed procedure. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to established procedures and guidelines for promotions in educational institutions. This ruling ensures that promotions are based on merit and a transparent selection process, rather than solely on the length of service.

The court set aside the judgment of the High Court and held that the respondent teachers were not entitled to the higher pay scale and redesignation.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the National Institute of Technology and set aside the judgment of the High Court.