PhD Requirement For Higher Academic Grade Pay Lecturers Has Rational Nexus With Enhancing Academic Standards: Delhi High Court Upholds AICTE Criterion
The High Court held that the grant of higher Academic Grade Pay to Lecturers possessing PhD qualifications is based on a rational classification and bears a direct nexus to improve academic standards in technical education.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Clause 3.9 of the AICTE Clarification dated January 4, 2016, which grants Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs. 10,000 to Lecturers (Selection Grade) and Heads of Department possessing a PhD qualification upon completion of the prescribed service.
The Court held that the differentiation between Lecturers holding a PhD and those who do not is founded on a rational classification and is aimed at enhancing academic standards in technical education.
The Court was hearing writ petitions filed by Lecturers appointed in various Government Polytechnics under the Government of NCT of Delhi between 1989 and 1999.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan, observed: “The said provision, which grants Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 10,000 to Lecturers (Selection Grade) / Heads of Department possessing a Ph.D. qualification upon completion of the prescribed service, is founded on a rational classification and bears a clear nexus with the object of enhancing academic standards in technical education.”
Background
The grievance arose after certain junior Lecturers who possessed PhD qualifications were granted a higher AGP of Rs. 10,000 pursuant to Clause 3.9 of the AICTE Clarification dated January 4, 2016. The petitioners challenged the said provision as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The petitioners contended that the earlier AICTE Regulations of 2010 and the Career Advancement Scheme Regulations of 2012 did not mandate Ph.D. qualification for placement in higher Academic Grade Pay. They argued that the 2016 Clarification introduced a new eligibility condition that was arbitrary and retrospectively altered their service conditions.
It was also submitted that a PhD was not an essential qualification at the time of their appointment and that the denial of an AGP of Rs. 10,000 to non-Ph. D. holders were unjustified. Lecturers violated principles of equality.
The respondents, including AICTE and the Government of NCT of Delhi, defended the policy because AICTE, as a statutory expert body, is empowered to prescribe qualifications and pay structures. It was submitted that possession of a PhD reflects a higher level of academic attainment and justifies higher Academic Grade Pay.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court noted that AICTE is a statutory expert body constituted under the AICTE Act, 1987, with the authority to lay down norms relating to staff qualifications, pay scales, and career advancement.
The Court observed that courts must exercise restraint while reviewing academic standards and pay structures prescribed by expert bodies, unless such decisions are shown to be arbitrary, irrational, or without nexus to statutory objectives.
The Bench held that the prescription of Ph.D. qualification for the grant of higher AGP was intended to promote higher academic standards and encourage teachers to pursue advanced research qualifications.
The Court further held that “the differentiation between Lecturers possessing a PhD 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”.
The Court distinguished earlier judgments relied upon by the petitioners and held that the present case concerned the grant of higher Academic Grade Pay based on enhanced qualifications, which falls squarely within the policy domain of AICTE.
Upholding the impugned criterion, the Bench concluded that “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 AICTE, and does not warrant interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court”.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed all the writ petitions and upheld the Tribunal’s orders. It held that Clause 3.9 of the AICTE Clarification dated January 4, 2016, is valid and does not suffer from arbitrariness or illegality.
The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.
Cause Title: Sunil Kumar Tiwari & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Along with connected matters (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:463-DB)
Appearances
Petitioners: Kumar Rajesh Singh and Punam Singh, Advocates
Respondents: Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, Pearl Sharma, Advocate, with other appearing Counsel