The Delhi High Court has held that the differentiation between Lecturers possessing a Ph.D. qualification and those who do not, cannot be said to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the prescription of higher academic qualifications for advancement in pay and career progression is a matter falling squarely within the domain of the statutory expert body, namely All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and does not warrant interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Finding no merit in the petitioners’ challenge to Clause 3.9 of the Clarification dated 04.01.2016 issued by the AICTE, the Court upheld the provision granting an Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs. 10,000 to Lecturers (Selection Grade) who possess a Ph.D., calling it a rational classification, and opined that the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) do not suffer from any infirmity, illegality, or perversity that would warrant interference.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the matter primarily involves the exercise of statutory discretion by an expert body, AICTE, in prescribing qualifications and career advancement criteria for teachers in technical institutions. Citing precedents like AICTE vs. Surender Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC 726], the Bench noted that it is not equipped with the academic or technical background to substitute its judgment for that of statutory experts in matters of technical education.
The Bench accepted the respondents’ submission that the rationale for the distinction is to encourage higher academic qualifications among teachers, thereby enhancing academic standards and the quality of technical education. The prescription of a Ph.D. for a higher AGP is intended to achieve the legitimate objective of providing better quality education and also serves as an incentive for teachers to pursue higher qualifications.
Briefly, the petitioners were appointed as Lecturers in various Government Polytechnics under the Government of NCT of Delhi between 1989 and 1999 and are currently working as Lecturers (Selection Grade). They are placed in the pay band of Rs. 37,400-67,000 with an Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs. 9,000/-. The petitioners, however, do not possess a Ph.D. degree.
The petitioners’ grievance arose from the fact that certain Lecturers, who are junior to them in service but possess a Ph.D. qualification, were granted a higher AGP of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioners challenged the prescription of a Ph.D. as an essential eligibility condition for placement in the AGP of Rs. 10,000/-, arguing it is arbitrary and discriminatory.
The challenge was specifically directed against Clause 3.9 of the AICTE Clarification dated 04.01.2016, which made a Ph.D. degree a requirement for Lecturers (Selection Grade) to move from an AGP of Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 10,000. The petitioners had initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their applications.
Appearances:
Advocates Kumar Rajesh Singh, Punam Singh, Purnima Jain, Awadesh Kumar, and Madhur, for the Petitioners
Advocates Avnish Ahlawat, Uday Singh Ahlawat, Tania Ahlawat, Nitesh Kumar Singh, Aliza Alam, Mohnish Sehrawat, B.S. Rawat, and Pearl Sharma, for the Respondents
