Ad Hoc Service Counts Towards Qualifying Service for Selection Grade Benefits Under AICTE Regulations

The respondent was appointed as an ad hoc lecturer on 25.01.1994, possessing a Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) degree, which was the requisite qualification under AICTE Regulations at the time

He was regularized on 24.06.1997

In 2004, he was granted a senior scale effective from 01.01.2002

However, in 2015, the authorities excluded him from the selection grade list because he lacked a Master of Engineering (M.E.) degree

The respondent challenged this, citing a 2012 Government Resolution and AICTE recommendations that count ad hoc service toward seniority and exempt older appointees from the M.E. requirement

The learned Single Judge ruled in favor of the respondent, which the State challenged in this appeal

1. Whether the respondent is entitled to the selection scale despite not possessing a Master of Engineering (M.E.) degree

2. Whether the respondent’s ad hoc service from 1994 can be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of granting the selection scale

The Court applied the AICTE Regulations existing at the time of appointment (1994), which prescribed only a B.E. degree for lecturers

It relied on Clause 9 of the AICTE recommendations (effective 01.01.1996), which stipulates that service rendered as an ad hoc lecturer shall be counted as qualifying service

Additionally, the Court applied the Government of Gujarat Resolution dated 31.12.2012, which dispensed with the M.E. degree requirement for lecturers appointed prior to 01.01.1996 for the purpose of placement in the selection scale

The Court reasoned that since the respondent was initially appointed in 1994—a date prior to the 01.01.1996 cutoff—he squarely falls within the exemption provided by the 2012 Government Resolution regarding the M.E. degree

The Court rejected the State’s argument that his ad hoc status excluded him, noting that under AICTE Clause 9, ad hoc service must be reckoned as qualifying service

Consequently, his total service from 1994 satisfied the five-year requirement for the senior scale in 2002 and the subsequent five-year requirement for the selection scale in 2007

The Court emphasized that because the respondent met the legal educational requirements (B.E.) at the time of both his ad hoc and regular appointments, subsequent 1999 regulations requiring a Master’s degree could not be applied retrospectively to deny him benefits

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision that the M.E. degree was not a prerequisite for the respondent

The appellants were directed to compute and release all remaining consequential benefits to the respondent within eight weeks