Earlier, the court ruled that teachers appointed after March 15, 2000, who did not have a Ph.D. and failed to acquire one within seven years of their appointment, were not eligible for higher pay scales or designation as associate professors
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India ruled that courts should avoid interfering with expert decisions on academic qualifications and standards unless they are found to be arbitrary, illegal, or involve legal interpretation.
ALSO READ: PM Modi’s Academic Qualifications|| SC Rejects AAP Leader Sanjay Singh’s Appeal
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran stated that judicial intervention should be minimal in matters related to academic qualifications, admissions, and criteria for appointments, promotions, and salaries of teachers.
The ruling came while deciding appeals against the Bombay High Court’s directive to grant revised pay scales under the Sixth Central Pay Commission to certain teachers working in engineering and technical institutes managed by a particular society.
The Supreme Court referred to the eligibility criteria prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) for teachers in engineering institutions.
The court emphasized that academic standards and qualifications should be determined by expert statutory bodies, and courts should not override their decisions unless necessary.
“This court time and again has reiterated that the responsibility of fixing qualifications for the purposes of appointment, promotion, etc., of staff or qualifications for admissions, is that of expert bodies, and so long as qualifications prescribed are not shown to be arbitrary or perverse, the courts will not interfere,” the bench observed.
The bench clarified that judicial review was still possible but should be exercised with caution.
“It only means that courts must be slow in interfering with the opinion of experts with 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,” the court explained.
The case involved two categories of teachers—those appointed before March 15, 2000, when Ph.D. was not a mandatory qualification, and those appointed after March 15, 2000, when Ph.D. became essential for promotion.
For teachers appointed before March 15, 2000, the Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s ruling that they were entitled to the revised pay scale under the Sixth Central Pay Commission.
However, the court ruled that teachers appointed after March 15, 2000, who did not have a Ph.D. and failed to acquire one within seven years of their appointment, were not eligible for higher pay scales or designation as associate professors.
“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,” the bench clarified.
