AICTE-compliant study leave entitles faculty to full salary, barring recovery under inconsistent State rules.

Ravindra Bhupatrai Gadhiya was selected through the Gujarat Public Service Commission and appointed as a Lecturer (Class II) in Instrumentation and Control Engineering at Government Polytechnic, Gandhinagar, by order dated 7 October 2015. Patel Ashishkumar Parsottamdas was similarly appointed as a Lecturer, later redesignated as Assistant Professor, in Power Electronics at Government Engineering College, Chandkheda, by order dated 28 February 2011.

To comply with All India Council for Technical Education (“AICTE”) requirements and obtain qualifications for career advancement, both petitioners pursued higher studies after their study leave/deputation was sanctioned by the State authorities under the AICTE’s Quality Improvement Programme (“QIP”) framework.

Gadhiya received full salary during the study-leave period, while Ashishkumar was paid only half salary.

The authorities subsequently relied on the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002 and Government Resolution dated 3 February 2016 to seek recovery of half the salary paid to Gadhiya and to deny the balance salary claimed by Ashishkumar.

Gadhiya challenged the recovery order dated 2 July 2019, while Ashishkumar sought payment of the differential salary with interest.

During the proceedings, the Court was informed that the Government Resolution dated 3 February 2016 had been quashed in Panchal Dipal Hareshbhai and 195 others v. State of Gujarat, in Special Civil Application No. 12926 of 2021 and allied matters, on the ground that it was inconsistent with the AICTE Act and applicable guidelines.

The Court applied the AICTE Act, 1987 and the AICTE guidelines governing the QIP scheme, under which eligible faculty members pursuing higher studies could be sent on deputation/study leave with salary without treating the period as a break in service.

It held that the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002, which ordinarily governed study leave, could not override the AICTE Act and consistent AICTE guidelines where the petitioners’ studies were undertaken under the QIP framework.

The Court relied on the decision quashing Government Resolution dated 3 February 2016 in Panchal Dipal Hareshbhai and 195 others, SCA No. 12926 of 2021 and allied matters, and on the reasoning adopted in SCA No. 8475 of 2018 and allied matters, that the State Resolution was contrary to the AICTE statutory scheme.

It further applied the principle that Government Resolution dated 21 December 2023 could not operate retrospectively, absent an express provision, to prejudice rights arising from earlier sanctioned study leave.

The Court found that the petitioners were identically situated to the employees covered by the earlier judgment in SCA No. 8475 of 2018 and allied matters.

Since their study leave had been sanctioned under the applicable AICTE/QIP framework, the controlling legal regime was the AICTE Act and guidelines, rather than the ordinary salary restrictions under the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002.

The quashing of the Government Resolution dated 3 February 2016 removed the legal basis for the recovery from Gadhiya and for withholding the differential salary payable to Ashishkumar.

The Court also rejected reliance on the Government Resolution dated 21 December 2023 because it was issued after the impugned recovery/non-payment and contained no express retrospective operation; applying it retrospectively would disadvantage the petitioners.

The Court therefore treated the petitioners as entitled to full salary for the sanctioned period of deputation/study leave.

In Gadhiya’s case, it quashed and set aside the recovery order dated 2 July 2019 and held that no recovery of the salary paid during the study-leave period could be made.

In Ashishkumar’s case, it directed the respondents to pay full salary for the period of deputation/study leave within eight weeks from receipt of the order.

If the respondents failed to comply, the arrears were directed to carry interest at 6% per annum until realization.

Rule was made absolute to that extent, and direct service was permitted.