The Secretary All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (Aissms) vs. The State Of Maharashtra

REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 422
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S)._______________ OF 2025
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 7058-7061 OF 2019]
THE SECRETARY, ALL INDIA SHRI SHIVAJI
MEMORIAL SOCIETY (AISSMS) AND ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S)._______________ OF 2025
[ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 4787 OF 2025]
THE SECRETARY, ALL INDIA SHRI SHIVAJI
MEMORIAL SOCIETY (AISSMS) …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
LAXMAN SHIVAJI GODSE & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.04.01
17:50:58 IST
Reason:
1. Leave granted.
Page 1 of 26

2. By means of the Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.
7058-7061 of 2019, the appellant-Society seeks to
challenge the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court dated 17.07.2017 as well as the order dated
22.12.2018, passed in review later. The impugned orders
of the High Court direct the appellant-Society to extend
th
the benefit of revised pay scales under the 6 Central Pay
Commission to the Respondent-teachers, who were the
original Writ Petitioners before the Bombay High Court.
The Respondent-teachers are the ones who 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.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent-teachers,
who possess a Master’s degree in their field, were
appointed as Lecturers/Assistant Professors by the
appellant-Society in the institutes between 1995 and
2009. Requisite approval for their appointment was taken
from the concerned Universities to which the said
institutes were affiliated. It is also an admitted fact that
the Respondent-teachers, with the exception of one
Page 2 of 26

teacher, were not able to acquire Ph.D.’s within seven
years of their appointment in service, as was required.
4. At this stage, we may need to refer to the prescribed
qualification of teachers in an Engineering Institute, which
is laid down by the All India Council for Technical
Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE’ ). AICTE is a
body which was initially constituted in the year 1945 as
an advisory body to the Government of India but was
given a statutory status under the All India Council for
Technical Education Act of 1987 (for short ‘1987 Act’ )
and we now can trace its formation as a Statutory Body
under Section 3 of the 1987 Act. Its powers and functions
are given under Section 10 of the 1987 Act, which read as
under:
“ 10. Functions of the Council.— (1) It
shall be the duty of the Council to take all
such steps as it may think fit for ensuring
coordinated and integrated development of
technical education and maintenance of
standards and for the purposes of
performing its functions under this Act, the
Council may—
-----x-----x-----x-----
(i) lay down norms and standards for
courses, curricula, physical and
instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff
qualifications, quality instructions,
assessment and examinations;”
Page 3 of 26

5. Thus, under the powers referred above, AICTE is mandated
to provide qualifications for teachers that would include
Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and
Professors, of Engineering and Technical Colleges.
6. It is an admitted position by both the sides here that the
crucial date when Ph.D. was prescribed for the first time
as a qualification for Lecturers/Assistant Professors is
15.03.2000. Prior to 15.03.2000, Ph.D. was not an
essential and mandatory qualification for
Lecturers/Assistant Professors. Out of the nine private
respondents before us, who were also petitioners before
the High Court, four were appointed prior to 15.03.2000
and the remaining five were appointed post 15.03.2000,
when the notification dated 15.03.2000 had come into
effect.
7. The subject matter of the notification dated 15.03.2000
reads as under:
“AICTE NOTIFICATION ON REVISION
OF PAY-SCALES AND ASSOCIATED
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
SERVICE OF TEACHERS,
LIBRARIANS AND PHYSICAL
EDUCATION PERSONNEL FOR
DEGREE LEVEL TECHNICAL
INSTITUTIONS.”
Page 4 of 26

The above notification of AICTE prescribed minimum
qualification for various teaching posts in degree level
technical institutes and further prescribed qualifications
for Assistant Professor as follows:

Under the “CAREER ADVANCEMENT” heading of the
notification dated 15.03.2000, Clause 7 (b) was as follows:
Page 5 of 26

(b) For movement into grades of Assistant
Professor and above, the minimum eligibility
criterion would be Ph.D. Those teachers without
Ph.D. can go upto the level of lecturer (Selection
grade).
8. Then comes AICTE notification of 2005 issued on
28.11.2005, which again prescribes the following
minimum qualification for various teaching posts in
degree-level technical institutes and further prescribed
qualifications for Assistant Professor as follows:

Page 6 of 26

Thus, there can be no doubt that a candidate could be
appointed as an Assistant Professor after 15.03.2000, only
if he/she had a Ph.D. degree with a first class at
Bachelor’s or Master’s level in their appropriate branch of
Engineering and two years of teaching experience. A
candidate could also be appointed Assistant Professor if
he/she had a first class at Master’s level in their
appropriate branch of Engineering and five years of
teaching experience but such a candidate will be required
to obtain a Ph.D. within a period of seven years from the
date of appointment as Assistant Professor.
9. We are presently concerned with such teachers amongst the
respondents who were neither Ph.D. at the time of their
appointment nor have they acquired Ph.D. within seven
years.
Page 7 of 26

10. After the two notifications referred above comes the AICTE
notification of 05.03.2010. This notification again
prescribes qualification for teachers in technical institutes
and reiterates the same qualification. In addition, the
notification also prescribes “the pay structure for different
categories of teachers and equivalent positions” . With this
notification, the designation of lecturers was changed to
Assistant Professors, and consequent to this notification
there would now be only three categories of teachers in
universities and colleges (including technical institutions)
i.e. Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor,
which becomes clear from a perusal of the following
portion of the notification:
“ General
(i) There shall be only three designations in
respect of teachers in universities and
colleges, namely, Assistant Professors,
Associate Professors and Professors…..”
11. Further, 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:
Page 8 of 26

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 as Associate Professor.”
12. The respondent-teachers claim the benefits of the above
provision. The Assistant Professors i.e., the respondents
who had completed three years of service in pre-revised
pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 on 01.01.2006 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 had filed a Writ Petition before the High
Court, as they were being denied this by the present
Appellant.
Page 9 of 26

This is the precise dispute in the present case, and
the question to be decided by this Court is whether the
respondents who have admittedly completed three years of
service in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 (on
01.01.2006) are now entitled for pay band of Rs.37400-
67000 and AGP of Rs.9000 and also whether they are
liable to be redesignated as Associate Professors.
13. Relying upon the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the
Bombay High Court at Aurangabad in
Sanjay
v.
Shrirangrao Surwase and Ors State of
(WP No. 6001 of 2013) , same relief
Maharashtra and Ors
was given in favour of the respondents herein as well by
the Bombay High Court in the impugned order dated
17.07.2017, and they were to be re-designated as
Associate Professor and be given a higher pay scale as per
th
the 6 Pay Commission. When the present appellant had
challenged the impugned order dated 17.07.2017 (of the
Bombay High Court) before this Court, the question which
had come up before this court was whether the teachers
were qualified enough to be given the benefit as they had
sought for. The appellant before this Court had argued
Page 10 of 26

that the decision of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay
High Court in the earlier petition cannot be applicable in
the case of present respondents as it has been made
applicable in the impugned order dated 17.07.2017 for the
reason that whereas the petitioners before the Aurangabad
Bench were qualified, the respondents in the present case
lack the requisite qualifications. The obvious indication of
the Appellant was on the Ph.D. degree. The petition was,
therefore, disposed of by this Court in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Nos. 27975-27976 of 2017 by granting
liberty to the appellant to file a Review Petition before the
Bombay High Court. The following order was passed:
“Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that the present case is not covered in terms of
the decision in Sanjay Shrirangrao Surwase
& Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
rendered in Writ Petition No. 6001/2013 on the
file of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Bombay at Aurangabad. One main distinction
pointed out is that, it was a case of qualified
teachers whereas in this case the teachers are
not qualified as per A.I.C.T.E. and not entitled
to the benefit of designation and consequent
benefit of Sixth Pay Commission.
We do not find that this aspect has been
addressed before the High Court and nor has
the High Court dealt with it. In the event of
filing such a review within thirty days from
Page 11 of 26

today the same may not be dismissed on the
ground of delay.
The special leave petitions are, accordingly,
disposed of.
We make it clear that we have not considered
the matter on merits.”
(Emphasis provided)

14. In terms of the liberty granted by this Court vide the above-
quoted order, the Appellant-Society then filed Review
Petitions before the Bombay High Court. The High Court,
while dismissing the review petitions took note of the fact
that the issue of the earlier Bombay High Court
(Aurangabad Bench) judgment in
Sanjay Shrirangrao
being distinguishable on facts was not raised by
Surwase
the Appellant-Society earlier. The High Court took note of
the submissions on behalf of the Respondent-teachers to
the effect that the teachers who were petitioners in the
Sanjay Shrirangrao Surwase also did not have a Ph.D.,
and a specific averment in that regard was made in the
Reply Affidavit before the High Court. The High Court
dismissed the review petitions filed by the Appellant, as
there was no difference between the two batch of
petitioners regarding their qualifications.
Page 12 of 26

15. Be that as it may, these are the two orders
(dated17.07.2017 and 22.12.2018) which are presently
under challenge before this Court. Since the decision of
this Court dated 03.11.2017 wherein liberty was given to
the appellant to file a review clearly states that this Court
had not expressed anything on the merit of the case, we
have heard the matter in its entirety on every aspect of the
matter argued from both the sides.
16. As we have already indicated above, there are two different
categories of teachers before us as respondents. We have
one set who were appointed prior to 15.03.2000 when
Ph.D. was made a minimum qualification for the first
time; and then the other class of teachers who were
appointed after 15.03.2000, when Ph.D. was an essential
qualification.
17. As far as such teachers are concerned who were appointed
prior to 15.03.2000, we do not see any reason to disturb
the findings of the High Court regarding their entitlements
th
under the 6 Pay Commission, etc. All the same, the other
half of respondents, who were appointed post the AICTE
notification dated 15.03.2000 had come into force, they
Page 13 of 26

fall in a different category altogether. These are the
teachers who were appointed after 15.03.2000 and were
not having Ph.D. qualification though it was mandatory
and moreover 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. At this juncture, we
would like to record the submission made at the Bar that
one of these respondents i.e., Dr. Madhavi Ajay Pradhan
who though was appointed as Assistant Professor on
14.06.2004 (i.e. after 2000 AICTE Notification) has gone
ahead and completed her Ph.D. She also cannot be denied
the benefit of the Bombay High Court decision presently
under challenge before this Court.
18. The learned Counsel for the private respondents Sri Abhay
Atul Anturkar would, however, argue that the powers
vested with AICTE were statutory in nature under Section
23 of the 1987 Act, which reads as follows:
23. Power to make regulations .—(1) The
Council may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with
the provisions of this Act, and the rules
generally to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing power, such
Page 14 of 26

regulations may provide for all or any of the
following matters, namely:—
(a) regulating the meetings of the Council and
the procedure for conducting business thereat;
(b) the terms and conditions of service of the
officers and employees of the Council;
(c) regulating the meetings of the Executive
Committee and the procedure for conducting
business thereat;
(d) the area of concern, the constitution, and
powers and functions of the Board of Studies;
(e) the region for which the Regional Committee
be established and the constitution and
functions of such Committee.
19. Learned Counsel for the private respondents would further
argue that notification which is clarificatory in nature had
th
come out on 4 January, 2016, issued by the AICTE in
exercise of powers under the above-quoted Section 23 of
the 1987 Act . The notification dated 04.01.2016 was to
clarify “ on certain issues / anomalies pertaining to
qualifications, pay scales, service conditions, career
advancement schemes (CAS) etc. for teachers and other
academic staff of technical institutions (degree /diploma)”
The clarification with which we are presently concerned,
and it is in the form of a questionnaire is as follows:

Page 15 of 26

20. The learned Counsel for the respondents then relies upon
the judgment of this Court in Christy James Jose and
Ors v. State of Kerala and Ors 2016 SCC OnLine SC
1817 and would argue that the AICTE clarification of
04.01.2016 has a statutory status, and in terms of the
same, the only consequence of non-completion of Ph.D.
within seven years would be the stoppage of increments.
We have gone through the above decision. The above case
does not hold that the 2016 clarification has statutory
status. In fact, while interpreting Clause 53 of the 2016
clarification (on which the respondents also rely), the
decision only says that the failure to acquire a Ph.D.
within seven years can result in stoppage of increments
but cannot result in termination of services. The above
decision is silent on the aspect of movement to a higher
pay scale, which is the primary issue in the present case.
Page 16 of 26

21. In any case, the interpretation of the 2016 clarification has
been settled by a subsequent three-judge bench decision
of this Court in Gelus Ram Sahu v. Surendra Kumar
(2020) 4 SCC 484 , which has been placed before
Singh
us by Sri Ravindra Shrivastava, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Appellant. He would argue that
the clarificatory notification of 2016 is of no relevance as it
only reiterates the position regarding qualification, re-
designation, and pay scales of Assistant Professors and
Associate Professors which were already provided in the
AICTE notification of 2010. The learned Senior Counsel
for the appellant also argues that the 2016 notification
does not have statutory status, as is being projected by the
respondents. As stated above, he relies upon the later
three-judge Bench decision of this Court in
Gelus Ram
where it was observed that:
Sahu (supra)
“ “Clarificatory” legislations are an exception
24.
to the general rule of presuming prospective
application of laws, unless given retrospective
effect either expressly or by necessary
implication. In order to attract this exception,
mere mention in the title or in any provision that
the legislation is “clarificatory” would not
suffice. Instead, it must substantively be proved
that the law was in fact “clarificatory”…..
Page 17 of 26

25. The present case is one where except for the
title, nothing contained therein indicates that the
2016 AICTE Notification was clarificatory in
nature. The said Notification is framed in a
question-answer style and merely restates what
has already been made explicit in the
2010 AICTE Regulations. There seems to be no
intent to alter the position of law but instead
only to simplify what the AICTE had resolved
through its original regulation. The 2016 AICTE
Notification is a response to the doubts put forth
to AICTE by the public. This is evident from the
stand put forth by AICTE before us in its reply
as well as during the course of hearing, namely,
that there is no retrospective alteration in the
qualification prescribed for the post of Principal.
26. Even if the 2016 AICTE Notification was
clarificatory, it must be demonstrated that there
was an ambiguity in the criteria for appointment
to the posts of Principal, which needed to be
remedied. Clarificatory notifications are distinct
from amendatory notifications, and the former
ought not to be a surreptitious tool of achieving
the ends of the latter. If there exists no
ambiguity, there arises no question of making
use of a clarificatory notification. Hence, in the
absence of any omission in the
2010 AICTE Regulations, the
2016 AICTE Notification despite being generally
clarificatory must be held to have reiterated the
existing position of law.
22. We must note that this Court in the above case has not
given its findings in general terms between clarificatory
notifications as distinct from statutory amendments, what
it was actually comparing were the precise two
Page 18 of 26

notifications with which we are presently concerned i.e.,
notification dated 05.03.2010 and clarificatory notification
dated 04.01.2016. It was in that context that it was held
that a clarificatory notification cannot be a surreptitious
tool for achieving the ends of an amending notification. “If
there exists no ambiguity, there arises no question of
making use of a clarificatory notification. Hence, in the
absence of any omission in the 2010 AICTE Regulations,
the 2016 AICTE Notification despite being generally
clarificatory must be held to have reiterated the existing
position of law”.
23. Moreover, the provision on which the private respondents
are relying upon clearly stipulates that such assistant
professors who are not having Ph.D. qualification shall
acquire the same within seven years failing which they will
not be given their increment. Now when the provision
even in its clarificatory notification denies an increment,
then by logic such teachers cannot be given the higher pay
scale. In any case, the notifications of 2005 and 2010
leaves nothing in doubt that such teachers will not be
given the higher pay scale.
Page 19 of 26

24. To clarify, the phrase “incumbent Assistant Professors and
incumbent Lecturers” given in Clause (ix) of 2010
Notification of AICTE would mean such Assistant
Professors and Lecturers who have the essential
qualifications including Ph.D. or those who were
appointed prior to 15.03.2000 without Ph.D. This is the
only meaningful manner in which the above provision can
be read. AICTE which is an expert body mandated by law,
inter alia, to prescribe essential qualifications for a
teaching post, and hence we cannot question the logic and
wisdom of this expert body which prescribes the essential
qualifications for these posts. No one has challenged such
a qualification, which is Ph.D. in the present case, on the
ground that it should not have been made an essential
qualification. Further in the present case, the law not only
prescribes qualifications but also gives the consequences
of not having these qualifications. We find nothing
arbitrary in such prescriptions.
25. This Court time and again has reiterated that the
responsibility, of fixing qualifications for purposes of
appointment, promotion etc. of staff or qualifications for
Page 20 of 26

admissions, is that of expert bodies (in the present case,
the AICTE), and so long as qualifications prescribed are
not shown to be arbitrary or perverse, the Courts will not
interfere. In All India Council for Technical Education
v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan & Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 726 ,
this Court while dealing with the question regarding
decision taken by AICTE whether a bridge course should
be permitted to make diploma-holders eligible for
engineering course, observed as under:
… AICTE consists of professional and
“15.
technical experts in the field of education
qualified and equipped to decide on those issues.
In fact, a statutory duty is cast on them to decide
these matters.
16. The courts are neither equipped nor have the
academic or technical background to substitute
themselves in place of statutory professional
technical bodies and take decisions in academic
matters involving standards and quality of
technical education…
17. The role of statutory expert bodies on
education and the role of courts are well defined
by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational
policy or an issue involving academic matter, the
courts keep their hands off. If any provision of
law or principle of law has to be interpreted,
applied or enforced, with reference to or
connected with education, the courts will step
in…”
In other words, normally, courts should not interfere with
the decisions taken by expert statutory bodies regarding
Page 21 of 26

academic matter: may it relate to qualification for
admission of students or 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 [Also see: Medical Council of India v.
Sarang & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 427 ]. Consequently, where
a candidate does not possess the minimum qualifications,
prescribed by an expert body, for appointment or
promotion to a particular post in an educational
institution, such a candidate will not be entitled to get
appointed or will be deprived of certain benefits, which is
the case we have in hand.
26. We also have to take into account the fact that in the
present situation the law itself creates two different
classes, an Assistant Professor with Ph.D. and another
Page 22 of 26

Assistant Professor without Ph.D. If the salary,
designation, etc. would remain unchanged for the two
irrespective of whether one has Ph.D. or not, as the private
respondents would like us to accept then it may have a
negative fallout in the quality of teaching. Our focus is as
much with the quality of teaching as with the equity in
service conditions.
27. Under the circumstances, and in terms of what we have
held above, the respondents who were appointed after
15.03.2000, who were non-Ph.D. and had also failed to
acquire the same within seven years of appointment as
was required, cannot be given the benefit of 2010
notification inasmuch as they cannot be given a higher
pay scale or re-designated as an Associate Professor. The
phrase ‘incumbent Assistant Professor’ in the 2010
notification, to our mind, would only include 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 in terms of the
notification dated 15.03.2000 read with subsequent
Page 23 of 26

notification dated 28.11.2005 acquired Ph.D. within seven
years of their appointment or those appointed prior to
15.03.2000; when Ph.D. was not an essential
qualification, continued uninterruptedly. 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).
28. The appellant shall release the higher pay scale to those
respondents who are appointed prior to 15.03.2000 with
an interest of 7.5% per annum on the arrears within a
period of four weeks from today failing which the interest
shall be calculated at the rate of 15% per annum. These
are Mr. Pandurang Abhimanyu Patil, Mrs. Mangal Hemant
Dhend, Mr. Diwakar Haribhau Joshi, Mr. Shivanandgouda
Kallanagouda Biradar. Since we have been apprised at the
Bar that one of the respondents (Dr. Madhavi Ajay
Pradhan), though appointed after the AICTE notification of
2000, has acquired Ph.D., the above direction is also
applicable in her case and appellant shall release benefits
in her favour subject to proper verification of her Ph.D.
Page 24 of 26

degree by the appellant. The rest of the private
respondents since they have failed to acquire Ph.D. within
seven years as required, cannot be designated as Associate
Professors or be entitled for the higher pay scale.
29. 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.
30. Consequently, the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)
No.7058-7061 of 2019 is partly allowed in the above
terms.
31. Insofar as Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.4787 of
2025 is concerned, the amount of Rs.30 lakhs deposited
by appellant before the High Court shall not be disbursed
till the final disposal of review petitions pending before the
High Court which shall now be decided in the light of this
judgment as expeditiously as possible. The impugned
order of the High Court is modified to that extent and the
appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
32. Interim order(s), if any, stand(s) vacated.
Page 25 of 26

33. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
………………………………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
………………………………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI,
APRIL 01, 2025.
Page 26 of 26