AICTE Guidelines for study leave with full pay override inconsistent State Service Rules and retrospective Government Resolutions.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the recovery of half salary from the petitioners is legally sustainable in view of the principles of natural justice

The court held

The Court allowed the petitions and quashed the impugned recovery orders

It also directed

It held that all petitioners are entitled to receive full salary during their study leave period

The Court directed the respondents to calculate and pay the differential arrears to the petitioners by May 31, 2026, failing which a 6% interest per annum would apply from June 1, 2026, until realization

Rule was made absolute

01Facts

The petitioners, working as Assistant Professors and Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges, were required to acquire Master’s Degrees to comply with AICTE guidelines and Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) requirements

p. 2, 3

Failure to do so would result in the stoppage of increments

p. 3

The petitioners were granted study leave to pursue higher studies; however, a dispute arose regarding their remuneration during this period.

While some received full salary, others received half, and the State subsequently sought to recover 50% of the salary paid to those who received full pay.

The State justified this recovery based on the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002, and Government Resolutions (G.R.) dated 03.02.2016 and 21.12.2023

p. 3, 4

The petitioners challenged these recovery orders and sought payment of full salaries for the study leave period

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the recovery of half salary from the petitioners is legally sustainable in view of the principles of natural justice

p. 9 · ¶ 11

ii.2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to full salary during the period of study leave under AICTE guidelines despite the restrictive provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002

p. 10 · ¶ 12.1 · p. 19 · ¶ 15

iii.3. Whether the Government Resolution dated 21.12.2023 can be applied retrospectively to justify the distinction between QIP and non-QIP categories for salary purposes

p. 11 · ¶ 13

03Law Applied

The Court applied the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Act, 1987, and the associated "Quality Improvement Programme" (QIP) policy, which stipulates that faculty members on deputation for higher studies should be paid their normal salary and allowances by the parent institution

p. 14, 15

The Court relied on the precedent *State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (1995)*, establishes that Central Acts (AICTE Act) prevail over inconsistent State Rules (Gujarat Civil Services Rules) in technical education matters

p. 21 · ¶ 15.2

It further applied the principle of Natural Justice, requiring an opportunity for a hearing before adverse recovery

p. 9

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 Section 14 Section 10 Section 20 Section 15

04Reasoning

The Court first determined that the recovery orders were void *ab initio* as they were issued without granting the petitioners an opportunity to be heard

p. 9 · ¶ 11

On merits, the Court noted that the G.R. dated 03.02.2016, which formed the basis for recovery, had already been quashed by a Coordinate Bench because it conflicted with AICTE norms

pp. 9-10

The Court rejected the State's reliance on the G.R. dated 21.12.2023, holding that it could not be applied retrospectively to transactions from 2018

p. 11

The Court emphasized that the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002, are general rules that must yield to the AICTE Act—a special Central legislation

p. 21 · ¶ 15.2

Since the AICTE guidelines mandate study leave "with pay" for acquiring promotional qualifications, the State's attempt to provide only "half-pay" under Rule 84 of the State Rules was deemed inconsistent and illegal

pp. 20-21