Vasudev Dehalwar vs Union Of India

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37629
1 WA-2713-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 7 OF MAY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 2713 of 2025
VASUDEV DEHALWAR
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Petitioner - Shri Vasudev Dehalwar is present in person.
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain - Assistant Solicitor General with Shri
Gajendra Singh Thakur for the respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal
The appellant challenges the order dated 02.11.2016 (Annexure P-
1) passed by the Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology,
Bhopal (hereinafter 'MANIT'), whereby the appellant's
appointment/promotion/redesignation as Associate Professor with effect
from 09.10.2006 was revoked and he was directed to be reverted to the
post of Assistant Professor. The writ petition assailing the said order was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.10.2023 in
W.P. No. 21349/2016, and the consequent Review Petition No.
1255/2023 was also dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2025. The present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/12/2026 5:33:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37629
2 WA-2713-2025
Appeal impugns both the aforementioned orders.

2. Briefly stated, the facts material to the controversy are as
follows. The appellant was appointed as Lecturer in MANIT and was
subsequently promoted/redesignated as Associate Professor vide order
dated 21.06.2005 (Annexure P-2) with effect from 09.10.2003, with
financial benefit operative from 20.06.2005. The said order incorporated
a note with the effect that employees not possessing a Ph.D. degree
would be required to obtain the same within seven years from the date of
promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. A chronological recital of
the material events is set out hereunder:
(i) 21.06.2005: MANIT issues order promoting/redesignating the
appellant as Associate Professor with effect from 09.10.2003, with
financial benefit from 20.06.2005. The order noted the seven-year Ph.D.
requirement.
(ii) 31.12.2008: MHRD issued a circular prescribing eligibility
criteria for appointments/promotions in educational institutions the
applicability of which to NITs subsequently became the source of
controversy.
(iii) 18.08.2009: MHRD issued a communication mandating Ph.D.
as a compulsory qualification for promotional posts, admittedly issued
after the appellant's promotion in 2006.
(iv) 08.10.2014: MHRD issued communication (F.No. 3-9/2014-TS-III)
directing MANIT to revoke all regular appointments and promotions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/12/2026 5:33:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37629
3 WA-2713-2025
made without adequate qualifications (Ph.D.) with immediate effect, on

the premise that the UGC/MHRD circular dated 31.12.2008 was not
applicable to NITs/CFTIs.
(iv) 02.11.2016: MANIT passed the impugned order (Annexure P-
1) revoking the appellant's designation as Associate Professor from the
date of conferment i.e. 09.10.2006, notwithstanding that his Ph.D. at
Victoria University remained pending.
The foregoing chronology discloses that: (a) the promotion in
2006 was validly conferred under the AICTE Career Advancement
Scheme (CAS) norms then in force; (b) the NIT Statutes themselves
came into force only on 05.06.2007; (c) the MHRD communications of
2009 and 2014 forming the stated basis for revocation were posterior to
the promotion; (d) the MHRD directive dated 08.10.2014 was directed
against promotions effected under Institute Order dated 20.08.2010 in
respect of twelve specific faculty members, and the appellant's name did
not figure in that list; and (e) several other similarly situated faculty
members were not subjected to any such action.
3. Petitioner present in person submits as under: -
(i) The impugned order dated 02.11.2016 proceeds on a
fundamentally erroneous premise. The stated basis for revocation was
not that the appellant had failed to complete his Ph.D. within seven years
of promotion, but that MHRD had directed that promotions made on the
basis of the UGC circular dated 31.12.2008 which was not applicable to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/12/2026 5:33:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37629
4 WA-2713-2025
NITs/CFTIs were liable to be revoked. The order records:

"Whereas, in light of the Ministry's directions, this institute has
examined with reference to MHRD letter dated 18th August 2009 the
legal position of appointments/promotions/re-designation granted vide
various institute orders and you have been found ineligible for said
promotion/re-designation to the Post of Associate Professor as the same
was granted to you on the basis of eligibility criteria laid down in
MHRD letter dated 31/12/2008 which was not applicable to NITs."
This is legally distinct from penalising an employee for failure to
obtain a Ph.D. within seven years.
(ii) The AICTE Gazette clarification dated 04.01.2016 at Point No.
53 expressly provides that failure to complete Ph.D. within seven years
shall result in stoppage of increments and not in reversion/demotion:
"Such candidates will be required to complete Ph.D. within 7
years from the date of Joining, failing which increments shall be stopped
until Ph.D. is earned."
(iii) The Supreme Court of India in Christy James Jose v. State of
Kerala (Civil Appeal No. 4604 of 2016, decided on 26.04.2016)
expressly held that non-acquisition of Ph.D. can at best result in
stoppage of increments and cannot result in reversion.
(iv) The Supreme Court in Dr. Jiji K.S. and Others v. Shibu K. and
Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 324, decided on 27.02.2026,
authoritatively re-affirmed the ratio of Christy James Jose. The operative
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/12/2026 5:33:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37629
5 WA-2713-2025
holding at paragraph 5 reads:

"Therefore, in effect as on date the non-acquisition of PhD can at
best result in stoppage of increment after the prescribed period of 7 years
and the resultant position would be that the same cannot result in either
restraining or doing away with their appointment to the post of Assistant
Professor for failure to acquire the said qualification even within the
stipulated period of 7 years."
(v) The promotion of the appellant was effected in October 2006
under the AICTE CAS norms then in force. The NIT Statutes came into
force only on 05.06.2007. The subsequent MHRD communications of
2009 and 2014 cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate a
promotion validly conferred in 2006, as doing so would entail
withdrawal of vested rights without express statutory sanction.
(vi) The impugned order constitutes reduction in rank carrying
civil consequences equivalent to a major penalty. The appellant did not
afford adequate hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice and
Article 311 of the Constitution. In terms of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief
Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, the validity of an order must
be judged by the reasons stated therein.
(vii) The action is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Several
similarly-placed faculty members were not subjected to reversion. The
MHRD communication dated 08.10.2014 was directed against twelve
specific faculty members promoted vide order dated 20.08.2010, and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/12/2026 5:33:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37629
6 WA-2713-2025
appellant's name does not appear in that list.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ
petition was rightly dismissed, contending that the appellant was made
aware of the seven-year Ph.D. condition, that the MHRD communication
dated 08.10.2014 had categorically directed revocation of all promotions
made without adequate qualifications, that a show-cause notice was duly
issued to which the appellant submitted his reply, and only thereafter
was the impugned order passed; and that the AICTE notification of
18.02.2003 and the clarification of 04.01.2016 were neither pleaded nor
placed before the learned Single Judge and cannot be agitated for the
first time in a Letters Patent Appeal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and
having perused the record, we proceed to consider the matter.
5. At the outset, it is necessary to note an important distinction
which appears to have been glossed over in the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge. The order dated 02.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) does
not, on its face, proceed primarily on the grounds that the appellant failed
to obtain a Ph.D. within seven years from the date of his promotion. The
operative text records:
"...you have been found ineligible for said promotion/re-
designation to the Post of Associate Professor as the same was granted to
you on the basis of eligibility criteria laid down in MHRD letter dated
31/12/2008 which was not applicable to NITs."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/12/2026 5:33:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37629
7 WA-2713-2025
Thus, the stated basis for revocation was the retrospective

application of MHRD's position that the UGC/MHRD circular dated
31.12.2008 was not applicable to NITs/CFTIs, and that the promotion
itself was therefore wrongly conferred. This is a fundamentally distinct
proposition from penalisation for failure to complete Ph.D. within seven
years. The learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition
substantially on the basis of the seven-year Ph.D. condition without
adequately addressing the actual ground on which the order was passed.
This constitutes a material error which warrants correction.
In this regard, it is necessary to notice the controversy surrounding
the MHRD letter dated 31.12.2008. The said letter was issued by MHRD
in the context of the UGC recommendations relating to the Career
Advancement Scheme for teachers in universities and colleges, and
extended the benefit of CAS promotions and revised pay scales to
certain categories of institutions. MHRD subsequently took the position
that this letter was not intended to apply to NITs and CFTIs, which are
separately governed by the NIT Act, 2007 and the NIT Statutes, 2007.
This retrospective clarification of inapplicability issued in 2014 with
reference to a promotion effected in 2006 formed the basis for revoking
a promotion that had been conferred and enjoyed for a decade. The
constitutional validity of such retrospective invalidation of a promotion
validly conferred on the basis of CAS norms in force at the relevant
time, raises serious questions which must be answered against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/12/2026 5:33:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37629
8 WA-2713-2025
respondents.

7. On the substantive question of law as to what consequence
flows from failure to obtain Ph.D. within the seven-year period, the
present case has been materially aided by the subsequent authoritative
pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Dr. Jiji K.S. and Others v.
Shibu K. and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 324, decided on 27.02.2026.
The Supreme Court traced the legislative history from the AICTE
notification dated 15.03.2000 and the AICTE notification dated
18.02.2003, which permitted promotion to the post of Associate
Professor before acquiring Ph.D. while granting a seven-year relaxation.
The AICTE Notification dated 28.11.2005 (Sl. No. 2) further prescribed
that candidates without Ph.D. at the time of appointment as Assistant
Professor shall be required to obtain Ph.D. within 7 years 'failing which
the increments will be stopped until Ph.D. is earned’ thus prescribing
stoppage of increments, and not reversion, as the consequence. The 2010
AICTE Notification further provided for redesignation of incumbent
Assistant Professors/Lecturers (Selection Grade) who had completed 3
years in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.12,000-18,300 on 01.01.2006.
The Supreme Court in Dr. Jiji K.S. (supra) expressly endorsed the ratio
of Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala (Civil Appeal No. 4604 of
2016) at paragraph 5 of its judgment which reads:
"Therefore, in effect as on date the non-acquisition of PhD can at
best result in stoppage of increment after the prescribed period of 7 years
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/12/2026 5:33:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37629
9 WA-2713-2025
and the resultant position would be that the same cannot result in either

restraining or doing away with their appointment to the post of Assistant
Professor for failure to acquire the said qualification even within the
stipulated period of 7 years."
This holding is decisive and binding. The AICTE clarification
dated 04.01.2016 at Point No. 53 is in accord therewith, providing
expressly that failure to complete Ph.D. within seven years shall result in
stoppage of increments and not in reversion.
8. The learned Single Judge placed reliance upon Dr.
Priyadarsini R.S. & Others v. The State of Kerala & Others [SLP (Civil)
Diary No. 1917/2021, decided on 02.02.2021]. A careful reading of the
operative portion of that order is instructive:
"We are in agreement with the view that the notification dated
18.02.2003 granting seven years to acquire PhD. Degree for the right to
hold the post of Associate Professors (re-designated as Assistant
Professors) would come to an end in 2010 and thus persons who acquire
the PhD. Degree on a subsequent date will only be eligible for
consideration from the date when they acquire PhD. Degree. The special
leave is dismissed with the aforesaid clarification."
The Supreme Court was only clarifying that the seven-year
concession under the AICTE notification dated 18.02.2003 would expire
in 2010, and that persons acquiring Ph.D. subsequently would be eligible
for consideration from the date of such acquisition. The order does not in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/12/2026 5:33:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37629
10 WA-2713-2025
any manner hold that the consequence of non-acquisition of Ph.D. is

automatic reversion or demotion. The proposition is one of eligibility for
consideration from the date of acquiring the degree not reversion or loss
of the post. The reliance placed upon Dr. Priyadarsini R.S. to justify
reversion was therefore misplaced, and the same has been rendered
further untenable by the subsequent authoritative ruling in Dr. Jiji K.S.
(supra).
The Supreme Court in Dr. Jiji K.S. (supra) also referred to All
India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 6
SCC 605, and clarified that the phrase 'incumbent Assistant Professor' in
the 2010 AICTE Notification includes only such Assistant Professors
who had Ph.D. at the time of appointment, or who acquired it within
seven years, or those appointed prior to 15.03.2000. Teachers appointed
after 15.03.2000 who failed to acquire Ph.D. within seven years would
not be entitled to the financial benefits of Clause (ix) of the 2010
Notification. Applying this to the present case, it is relevant to note that
the appellant was promoted from the year 2003 by order dated
21.06.2005 and designated as Associate Professor by the same order and
was not redesignated by any order dated 09.10.2006. Therefore, his
promotion/designation cannot be revoked by the order dated 02.11.2016.
However, in view of Dr. Jiji K.S. (supra), the appellant would not be
entitled to the financial benefits under Clause (ix) of the 2010 AICTE
Notification, having failed to acquire Ph.D. within the stipulated period.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/12/2026 5:33:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37629
11 WA-2713-2025
The consequence of non-acquisition is, at best, limitation of financial

benefits not annulment of the promotion or reversion.
9. On the question of retrospectivity, the promotion was effected
in 2006 under AICTE CAS norms then in force, the NIT Statutes came
into force only on 05.06.2007, and the MHRD communications of 2009
and 2014 were posterior to the promotion. It is settled law that a
subsequent administrative instrument cannot be applied retrospectively
to withdraw vested rights in the absence of an express retrospective
clause or clear statutory mandate. The impugned order revoking the
promotion 'from the date of conferment i.e. 09-10-2006' is manifestly
retrospective and lacks any express statutory or constitutional sanction
for such retrospective withdrawal of vested rights. This renders the
action doubly infirm.
10. On Article 14 ground- several other faculty members at
MANIT who were similarly promoted and had not completed their
Ph.D. within seven years were not subjected to reversion. The details of
12 such similarly situated faculty members have been placed on record.
Furthermore, the MHRD communication dated 08.10.2014 was directed
against twelve specific faculty members promoted vide Institute Order
dated 20.08.2010, and the appellant's name does not appear in that list.
The selective extension of MHRD's directions which were addressed in
respect of a specific batch of promotees to the appellant, who was
promoted in 2006 under a different instrument and a different scheme,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/12/2026 5:33:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37629
12 WA-2713-2025
without any cogent reason articulated in the impugned order, constitutes

arbitrariness violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11. In case of All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society v. State of
Maharashtra, (2025) 6 SCC 605 the Apex court held that those teachers
who were appointed after 15.03.2000 and had failed to acquire Ph.D.
qualification even thereafter will not be entitled to the benefits of the
2010 notification given in Clause (ix). Notification 2010 AICTE given
as under :-
The pay structure and re-designation of Assistant Professors is
prescribed in the 2010 AICTE notification and the provision with which
we are presently concerned is as below:
“Revised Pay Scales, Service conditions and Career Advancement
Scheme for teachers and equivalent positions: The pay structure for
different categories of teachers and equivalent positions shall be as
indicated below:
(a) Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/ Professors in
Technical Institutions
(i) …
(ii) … ...
(ix) Incumbent Assistant Professor and Incumbent Lecturers
(Selection Grade) who have completed 3 years in the pre-revised pay
scale of Rs.12000-18300 on 01.01.2006 shall be placed in Pay Band of
Rs.37400- 67000 with AGP Pay of Rs.9000 and shall be re-designated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/12/2026 5:33:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37629
13 WA-2713-2025
as Associate Professor.”

12. For all the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered
opinion that the impugned order dated 02.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) is
liable to be set aside on the following independent grounds: (i) the stated
basis for revocation that the appellant's promotion was made in reliance
on a circular not applicable to NITs cannot sustain retrospective
annulment of a promotion validly conferred in 2006 in the absence of an
express retrospective statutory mandate; (ii) even if failure to obtain
Ph.D. within seven years were to be treated as the applicable test, the
consequence under the AICTE scheme as authoritatively declared in
Christy James Jose (supra) and Dr. Jiji K.S. (supra) is stoppage of
increments, and not reversion; (iii) the action is arbitrary and
discriminatory in light of non-action against identically situated faculty
members; and (iv) the pre-order withholding of salary from May 2016 is
illegal and requires remedy.
13. The learned Single Judge's order dated 19.10.2023 as also
the order on review dated 10.07.2025 accordingly cannot be sustained
and are set aside.
14. In view of the foregoing, this Writ Appeal is ALLOWED.
The impugned orders dated 19.10.2023 passed in W.P. No. 21349/2016
and dated 10.07.2025 passed in R.P. No. 1255/2023 are set aside.
Consequently:
(i) The order dated 02.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by Maulana
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/12/2026 5:33:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37629
14 WA-2713-2025
Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, revoking the appellant's

promotion/redesignation as Associate Professor with effect from
09.10.2006, is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to restore the appellant to the post
of Associate Professor with effect from 09.10.2006.
(iii) The appellant shall not be entitled to the financial benefits
under Clause (ix) of the 2010 AICTE Notification, having been
appointed after 15.03.2000 and having failed to acquire the Ph.D.
qualification within the stipulated period, in terms of the law laid down
in All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society v. State of Maharashtra,
(2025) 6 SCC 605.
(iv) The respondents may free to take appropriate action for
stoppage of increment(s) for the period of non-possession of Ph.D.
degree, in terms of Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala (Civil Appeal
No. 4604 of 2016) and Dr. Jiji K.S. and Others v. Shibu K. and Others,
2026 SCC OnLine SC 324.
No order as to costs.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
JUDGE
Praveen

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
5/12/2026 5:33:43 PM