Courts Must Be Slow In Interfering With Opinion Of Experts Regarding Academic Standards; Judicial Review To Be Exercised Where Prescribed Qualification Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court

The Civil Appeals before the Apex Court were filed by the appellant Society, challenging the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court directing the Society to extend the benefit of revised pay scales under the 6th Central Pay Commission to the Respondent-teachers, who were the original Writ Petitioners before the Bombay High Court.The Respondent-teachers are presently teaching in engineering and technical institutes run and managed by the Appellant-Society, which is a private body and is not under the grant in aid of the Government.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran asserted, “In other words, normally, courts should not interfere with the decisions taken by expert statutory bodies regarding academic matter: may it relate to qualification for admission of students or the qualification required by teachers for appointment, salary, promotion, entitlement to a higher pay scale etc. However, this does not mean that Courts are deprived of their powers of judicial review. It only means that courts must be slow in interfering with the opinion of experts in regard to academic standards and powers of judicial review should only be exercised in cases where prescribed qualification or condition is against the law, arbitrary or involves interpretation of any principle of law.”

AOR Arjun Garg represented the Appellant while AOR Saurabh Mishra represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Respondent-teachers, possessing a Master’s degree in their field, were appointed as Lecturers/Assistant Professors by the appellant-Society in the institutes between 1995 and 2009. The crucial date when the Ph.D. was prescribed for the first time as a qualification for Lecturers/Assistant Professors was March 15, 2000. Before March 15, a Ph.D. degree was not an essential and mandatory qualification for Lecturers/Assistant Professors. Out of the nine private respondents, who were also petitioners before the High Court, four were appointed prior to March 15, 2000 and the remaining five were appointed post this date.

A Notification was issued by the AICTE in 2010 prescribing the pay structure for different categories of teachers and changing the designation of lecturers to Assistant Professors. The respondent-teachers claimed the benefits of the said Notification. The Assistant Professors i.e., the respondents who had completed three years of service in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 on January 1, 2006, wanted to be placed in the Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of Rs.9000 and to be designated as Associate Professor.

This was denied to them by the appellant-Society for the reason that they did not possess a Ph.D. degree which was a mandatory requirement to be an Assistant Professor. The respondents approached the High Court and subsequently, the Society was asked to extend the benefit of revised pay scales. It was in such circumstances that the appeal came to be filed before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench found no reason to disturb the findings of the High Court regarding the entitlements under the 6th Pay Commission, etc. as far as such teachers were concerned who were appointed prior to March 15, 2000. As per the Bench, the other half of respondents, who were appointed after the AICTE notification dated March 15, 2000, had come into force, fell in a different category altogether. These teachers did not have Ph.D. qualifications, though it was mandatory. Moreover, they had also failed to acquire a Ph.D. within seven years as stipulated in the AICTE notification of 2005 as well as their appointment order.

The Bench made it clear that the respondents who were appointed after March 15, 2000, who were non-Ph.D. and had also failed to acquire the same within seven years of appointment as was required, couldn’t be given the benefit of 2010 notification since they couldn’t be given a higher pay scale or re-designated as an Associate Professor.

The phrase ‘incumbent Assistant Professor’ in the 2010 notification included such Assistant Professors working on the post who had a Ph.D. qualification at the time of their appointment or who though did not have a Ph.D. qualification at the time of their appointment but subsequently acquired Ph.D. within seven years of their appointment or those appointed before March 15, 2000 when Ph.D. was not an essential qualification, continued uninterruptedly. Those teachers who were appointed after March 15, 2000 and had failed to acquire Ph.D. qualification even thereafter would not be entitled to the benefits of the 2010 notification given in Clause (ix), it held.

Thus, the Bench directed the Appellant to release the higher pay scale to those respondents who were appointed prior to March 15, 2000 with an interest of 7.5% per annum on the arrears. It was also ordered that the rest of the private respondents since they failed to acquire Ph.D. within seven years, couldn’t be designated as Associate Professors or be entitled for the higher pay scale.

“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 a grant of higher pay scale and designation of Associate Professor, which shall be considered by them in accordance with law”, it concluded.

Cause Title: The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS) and Ors. v.The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 422)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Arjun Garg, Advocates Kriti Gupta, Sagun Srivastava, Saaransh Shukla

Respondent: AOR Saurabh Mishra, Advocates Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande

Click here to read/download Judgment