A teacher lacking mandatory AICTE qualifications cannot claim reinstatement for want of a disciplinary inquiry.

The respondent was appointed as a Lecturer in Civil Engineering at the appellants’ institute in February 2011, possessing a first-class B.E. degree.

Following revised AICTE requirements and VTU directions, the institute notified faculty members holding only undergraduate qualifications that they were required to obtain a postgraduate degree; the respondent was specifically notified but did not enrol for or obtain an M.E./M.Tech.

The institute relieved him from service on 7 May 2015, citing his lack of the prescribed qualification.

The Education Appellate Tribunal set aside the order and directed reinstatement with back wages, holding that an enquiry required by Section 92(1) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 had not been held; it reserved the institute’s liberty to take action in accordance with law.

The Single Judge affirmed the Tribunal’s decision, and the institute appealed.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing reinstatement because the respondent’s service was ended without an enquiry under Section 92(1) of the Karnataka Education Act, notwithstanding his failure to possess the prescribed qualification for the post.

Section 10(1)(i) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 empowers AICTE to prescribe and modify qualifications for teachers and other academic staff in technical institutions; those norms govern the applicable qualifications.

Section 92(1) of the Karnataka Education Act protects teachers and employees from dismissal, removal or reduction in rank except in accordance with its statutory procedure, but does not create a substantive entitlement to hold a post without a qualification mandated by the applicable regulatory framework.

State of M.P. v. Shyama Pardhi, (1996) 7 SCC 118, and Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, (2008) 7 SCC 153, establish that an appointment contrary to prescribed statutory qualifications cannot ordinarily be sustained merely because a hearing was not afforded or because the appointee has served for a period of time.

The Court also relied on Jiji K.S. v. L.B.S. Center for Science and Technology, (2024) 16 SCC 712, and other AICTE decisions concerning the Council’s authority to prescribe faculty qualifications.

The Court treated the respondent’s missing M.E./M.Tech. as an objective deficiency in eligibility, not an allegation of misconduct requiring a disciplinary enquiry.

The institute had informed him of the revised qualification requirement and afforded him an opportunity to obtain the degree, which he did not pursue.

Accordingly, the procedural protection in Section 92(1) could not be used to compel his reinstatement in a teaching post for which he lacked the prescribed qualification; the Tribunal had erred in treating the absence of an enquiry as sufficient to invalidate the institute’s action.

However, the institute had appointed and retained the respondent despite his lacking the qualification, and the Court considered that conduct relevant to the equitable relief warranted.

In view of the institute’s role in appointing and retaining the respondent despite the qualification deficiency, it directed the institute to pay him ₹12 lakh within four weeks.