Supreme Court Clarifies Ph.D. Requirement for Polytechnic Principals: Gelus Ram Sahu vs. Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 February 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 165
Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, B.R. Gavai, J., and Surya Kant, J.

Can a state government mandate a Ph.D. degree for the position of Principal in polytechnic colleges, or can other qualifications suffice? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, clarifying the interpretation of regulations set by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). This case revolves around a dispute over the appointment of Principals in Chhattisgarh polytechnic colleges, where some appointees did not hold Ph.D. degrees. The core issue was whether the AICTE regulations made a Ph.D. mandatory or whether they provided alternative qualifications.

The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justice Surya Kant. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Surya Kant.

Case Background

Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh, the first respondent, was working as a lecturer of electrical engineering at the Government Polytechnic College, Ambikapur, from 10 November 1993. He was later promoted to Head of Department (HOD) of electrical engineering at the Government Polytechnic, Durg, from 3 March 2009. By 2014, he was working at Government Polytechnic, Kabirdham, with the additional charge of Principal-in-charge.

In 2014, the State of Chhattisgarh initiated a promotion process for the post of Principal. Dr. Singh, along with several other serving HODs, including the appellants, applied for the position. The appellants were declared successful on 25 June 2014, while Dr. Singh was not selected.

Aggrieved, Dr. Singh approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh, arguing that the promotion process violated the ‘Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Diploma) Regulations, 2010’ (2010 AICTE Regulations). These regulations, framed by AICTE, were binding on the State of Chhattisgarh. Dr. Singh contended that the ‘Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching cadre-Polytechnic) (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2014’ (2014 Chhattisgarh Rules), which allowed candidates without a Ph.D. to be appointed as Principals, were illegal.

Dr. Singh argued that the appellants were promoted despite not having a Ph.D. qualification. He also alleged other irregularities in the selection process, including below-specification ACR gradings of some candidates. He sought the quashing of the 2014 Chhattisgarh Rules and the promotion order of 25 June 2014, along with a review of his ACR gradings and reconsideration of his case for promotion.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Chhattisgarh ruled in favor of Dr. Singh, stating that the 2010 AICTE Regulations were binding and that the State Government could not lower the qualification threshold. The High Court interpreted the AICTE criteria to mean that a Ph.D. was mandatory for the post of Principal. The High Court also relied on the ‘All India Council for Technical Education (clarifications on certain issues/anomalies pertaining to Qualifications, Pay Scales, Service Conditions, Career Advancement Schemes (CAS) etc. for Teachers and other Academic Staff of Technical Institutions Degree/Diploma), 2016’ (2016 AICTE Notification), which it deemed to be clarificatory and applicable retrospectively. Consequently, the High Court quashed the relevant parts of the 2014 Chhattisgarh Rules and the promotion order of the appellants. The High Court also noted that Appellant No. 1 was part of the committee that drafted the 2014 Chhattisgarh Rules, raising a conflict of interest.

Legal Framework

The All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, established AICTE as a statutory body to regulate standards in technical education. The regulations framed by AICTE under this Act have the force of law and are binding on all technical institutions, including the State of Chhattisgarh. The 2010 AICTE Regulations specify the qualifications required for various teaching positions, including Principal and Head of Department (HOD) in polytechnic colleges.

The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of the qualifications for the post of Principal as laid down in the 2010 AICTE Regulations, which states:

“PRINCIPAL Qualification as above for the post of Head of Department and Ph.D in Engineering OR Qualification as above for the post of Head of Department Minimum of 10 years relevant experience in teaching/research/industry out of which at least 3 years shall be at the level of head of department or equivalent.”

The 2014 Chhattisgarh Rules allowed candidates without a Ph.D. to be appointed as Principals, provided they had 15 years of experience, including 3 years as HOD. This was challenged as being in contravention of the 2010 AICTE Regulations.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that the 2010 AICTE Regulations clearly used the word “or,” indicating that Ph.D. was not mandatory. The High Court erred by interpreting “or” as “and.”
• Even if there was any ambiguity, AICTE could not retrospectively introduce an eligibility condition that would deprive the appellants of their vested rights.
• Mandating a Ph.D. would leave seven out of nine Principal positions vacant in Chhattisgarh.
• Respondent No. 1, having participated in the promotion process, had accepted the interpretation of the rules by the State and was estopped from challenging the selection process.

Respondent No. 1’s Submissions:

• AICTE is the supreme authority for setting standards in technical education, and all technical institutions must adhere to its standards.
• The 2010 AICTE Regulations mandate a Ph.D. in Engineering as an essential qualification for the post of Principal.
• The 2014 Chhattisgarh Rules were ultra vires for relaxing mandatory qualifications.
• There were procedural irregularities in framing and publishing the 2014 Chhattisgarh Rules.
• The State arbitrarily altered the minimum grading requirement to favor certain candidates.

Respondent No. 3 (AICTE)’s Submissions:

• AICTE clarified that it was not their case to remove those already promoted as Principals without a Ph.D.
• Any interpretation by the Court holding a Ph.D. mandatory should be prospective, not retrospective.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Is Ph.D. mandatory for appointment to the post of ‘Principal’ under the 2010 AICTE Regulations?
2. Does the 2016 AICTE Notification retrospectively ‘clarify’ eligibility conditions for appointment as ‘Principal’?
3. Whether retrospective changes in qualificatory requirements can affect the existing appointments?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• B Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala [(2009) 3 KLJ 563]: The High Court of Kerala’s decision, which held that the State Government could not lower the qualification threshold, was not followed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation and held that the State Government could specify either of the two criteria.
• Virtual Soft Systems v. CIT [(2007) 9 SCC 665]: The Supreme Court cited this case to explain that a law cannot be considered clarificatory unless the statute itself expressly states so. The Court used this to determine that the 2016 AICTE Notification was not truly clarificatory.
• T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana [1986 Supp SCC 584]: The Supreme Court cited this case to support the principle that vested rights cannot be impaired by retrospective laws.
• K. Ravindranath Pai v. State of Karnataka [1995 Supp (2) SCC 246]: The Supreme Court cited this case to support the principle that vested rights cannot be impaired by retrospective laws.
• K. Narayanan v. State of Karnataka [1994 Supp (1) SCC 44]: The Supreme Court cited this case to support the principle that vested rights cannot be impaired by retrospective laws.
• Railway Board v. Rangadhamiah [(1997) 6 SCC 623]: The Supreme Court cited this case to elaborate on the law regarding vested rights in service matters, emphasizing that a rule cannot retrospectively reverse a benefit already granted.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Interpretation of “or”: The Court emphasized the use of the word “or” in the 2010 AICTE Regulations, indicating that the qualifications were alternative, not cumulative. This meant that a Ph.D. was not mandatory if other conditions were met.
• Nature of the 2016 AICTE Notification: The Court determined that the 2016 AICTE Notification was not a substantive amendment but a clarification of existing rules. It did not retrospectively change eligibility criteria.
• Protection of Vested Rights: The Court upheld the principle that vested rights cannot be impaired by retrospective changes in qualification requirements. The appellants’ appointments were valid under the rules at the time of their promotion.
• Avoiding Inconsistency: The Court noted that mandating a Ph.D. in Engineering would create inconsistencies, as the regulations also recognized experience in other fields like Architecture.
• Promoting Inclusivity: The Court favored an interpretation that would allow a wider pool of applicants, aligning with the spirit of Article 16 of the Constitution, which promotes equal opportunities in public employment.

The Court rejected the argument that the 2016 AICTE Notification retrospectively mandated a Ph.D., stating that the notification was merely clarificatory and did not change the existing position of law. The Court also rejected the argument that the 2014 Chhattisgarh Rules were ultra vires, as the rules provided for alternative qualifications consistent with the 2010 AICTE Regulations.

The Court quoted Railway Board v. Rangadhamiah [(1997) 6 SCC 623] to highlight that a rule that operates in futuro cannot be assailed on the ground of retroactivity, but a rule which seeks to reverse from an anterior date a benefit which has been granted can be challenged.

The Court also observed that even if the eligibility conditions were clarified from an earlier date, it would not be prudent to affect appointments made based on a possible understanding of the eligibility conditions.

The Court stated, “We are, thus, of the considered opinion that the appellants’ appointments ought to remain undisturbed in any eventuality.”

The Court also dismissed the High Court’s objection regarding a conflict of interest, stating that Appellant No. 1 held too small a position to influence the rule-making authority.

There was no minority opinion.

Key Takeaways

• A Ph.D. degree is not mandatory for appointment to the post of Principal in polytechnic colleges under the 2010 AICTE Regulations.
• The 2010 AICTE Regulations provide for alternative qualifications, and the state government can specify either of the two criteria.
• Clarificatory notifications cannot be used to retrospectively change eligibility conditions for appointments.
• Vested rights of employees cannot be impaired by retrospective changes in qualification requirements.
• The Supreme Court favors interpretations that promote inclusivity and provide wider opportunities in public employment.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, but it set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the 2010 AICTE Regulations provide alternative qualifications for the post of Principal in polytechnic colleges, and a Ph.D. is not mandatory. This decision clarifies the interpretation of the regulations and protects the vested rights of employees. The Supreme Court also reiterated that clarificatory notifications cannot be used to retrospectively change eligibility conditions. This ruling clarifies the position of law, ensuring that appointments made under existing rules are not disturbed by subsequent interpretations or clarifications.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court clarified that a Ph.D. is not mandatory for the post of Principal in polytechnic colleges under the 2010 AICTE Regulations. The Court emphasized that the regulations provide for alternative qualifications and that vested rights cannot be impaired by retrospective changes in qualification requirements. The appellants’ appointments were upheld, and the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 was dismissed.