“Ph.D. Is an Essential Qualification Prescribed by AICTE”: Supreme Court Denies Higher Pay and Redesignation to Non-Ph.D. Teachers Appointed After 2000
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, held that teachers appointed in technical institutions after 15 March 2000 without a Ph.D., and those who failed to obtain the degree within seven years as prescribed, are not entitled to higher pay scales or redesignation as Associate Professors under the 2010 AICTE notification. The Court recorded that Ph.D. is a mandatory qualification prescribed by the AICTE, a statutory expert body under the 1987 Act, and held that courts cannot interfere with such academic standards unless found arbitrary or unlawful. The Court directed the appellant institution to release benefits with interest to eligible teachers who met the required criteria.
The matter before the Supreme Court arose from a dispute between a private educational society and a group of its teaching staff concerning eligibility for revised pay scales and designation under the 6th Central Pay Commission, as notified by the AICTE. The respondent-teachers, employed between 1995 and 2009 in technical and engineering institutes, had sought benefits under AICTE’s 2010 notification, which introduced revised pay structures and redesignated Lecturers and Assistant Professors as Associate Professors, subject to certain qualifications.
The crux of the issue pertained to the requirement of a Ph.D. degree as a minimum qualification for teachers seeking elevation under the 2010 notification. The teachers who were appointed after 15.03.2000 but had not obtained a Ph.D., claimed entitlement to the revised pay scale based on the High Court’s earlier decision, which extended similar benefits in a comparable case.
The appellants contended that while the respondents were appointed as Assistant Professors, they failed to fulfill the condition stipulated under the AICTE notifications of 2000, 2005, and 2010, which mandated acquisition of a Ph.D. within seven years of appointment. It was argued that the respondents’ lack of qualification disqualified them from being granted higher pay or redesignation.
The appellant institution relied on Clause 7(b) of the 2000 AICTE notification and the 2005 clarification that teachers without a Ph.D. could be appointed but must complete the degree within seven years. Clause 53 of the 2016 clarification issued by the AICTE further stated that failure to obtain a Ph.D. within the stipulated time would result in stoppage of increments.
The respondents, however, argued that the 2016 clarification should be interpreted as meaning that non-completion of a Ph.D. would not disqualify them from higher pay or redesignation, and only increments would be affected. They also cited the decision in Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala, which addressed the consequence of failure to obtain a Ph.D. within the required timeframe.
During the pendency of the proceedings, it was admitted that one of the teachers had subsequently completed her Ph.D. after her appointment. This became relevant in the Court's consideration of partial relief.
The Court differentiated between two sets of respondent-teachers: those appointed before 15.03.2000, when a Ph.D. was not an essential qualification, and those appointed after that date when it became mandatory. It recorded, “As far as such teachers are concerned who were appointed prior to 15.03.2000, we do not see any reason to disturb the findings of the High Court regarding their entitlements under the 6th Pay Commission.” However, for teachers appointed post-15.03.2000 who did not obtain a Ph.D. within seven years, the Court stated, “They fall in a different category altogether.”
The Court addressed the argument regarding the statutory status of AICTE’s 2016 clarification and rejected the contention that it altered the original qualifications or conferred new rights. Referring to the three-judge bench in Gelus Ram Sahu v. Surendra Kumar Singh, the Court observed, “The 2016 AICTE Notification despite being generally clarificatory must be held to have reiterated the existing position of law.”
On interpreting Clause (ix) of the 2010 AICTE notification, the Court stated, “The phrase ‘incumbent Assistant Professors and incumbent Lecturers’… would mean such Assistant Professors and Lecturers who have the essential qualifications including Ph.D. or those who were appointed prior to 15.03.2000 without Ph.D.” It concluded that those appointed after the cut-off date and who failed to acquire the qualification within the prescribed period would not be entitled to the benefits.
In support of its reasoning, the Court cited All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan, noting that AICTE, as an expert body, was competent to fix qualifications and that courts should refrain from interfering in academic matters unless the prescriptions are shown to be arbitrary or contrary to law. The Court recorded, “No one has challenged such a qualification, which is Ph.D. in the present case, on the ground that it should not have been made an essential qualification.”
The Court further noted, “We also have to take into account the fact that in the present situation the law itself creates two different classes, an Assistant Professor with Ph.D. and another Assistant Professor without Ph.D.” It remarked that applying uniform pay and designation regardless of qualifications would dilute academic standards.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, modifying the High Court’s decision. It directed the appellant society to release the higher pay scale with 7.5% annual interest on arrears to the four teachers appointed prior to 15.03.2000: Mr. Pandurang Abhimanyu Patil, Mrs. Mangal Hemant Dhend, Mr. Diwakar Haribhau Joshi, and Mr. Shivanandgouda Kallanagouda Biradar.
The Court also directed that Dr. Madhavi Ajay Pradhan, who was appointed after 15.03.2000 but had since acquired a Ph.D., be granted the same benefits, subject to verification of her degree.
The Court stated, “The rest of the private respondents since they have failed to acquire Ph.D. within seven years as required, cannot be designated as Associate Professors or be entitled for the higher pay scale.”
It was further clarified that teachers who subsequently obtain the requisite qualification may apply for redesignation and pay revision, stating, “As and when, these teachers acquire a Ph.D., they would be at liberty to move an application before their respective institutions and AICTE for grant of higher pay scale and designation of Associate Professor, which shall be considered by them in accordance with law.”
In relation to the other connected appeal, the Court held that the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs deposited by the appellant shall not be disbursed until the disposal of the review petition pending before the High Court. The Court modified the impugned order to that extent.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Ravindra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents: Abhay Atul Anturkar, Advocate
Case Title: The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS) and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 422
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. ___ of 2025 [@ SLP (C) Nos. 7058-7061 of 2019 & SLP (C) No. 4787 of 2025]
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
[Read/Download order]
