NCTE Regulation Amendments Prescribing Additional Qualifications Apply Prospectively and Cannot Nullify Existing Valid Appointments.

The petitioners were appointed as Lecturers/Assistant Professors at Shri Vasudev Basic Teachers Training Institute (Respondent No. 4) under the NCTE Regulations of 2009 and 2014

On July 15, 2017, Respondent No. 4 issued an order (Annexure P/1) removing the petitioners from service effective October 14, 2017, on the grounds that they did not possess NET/SLET/Ph.D. qualifications

These qualifications were introduced via an NCTE notification dated June 9, 2017, which amended the existing regulations

The petitioners challenged their removal, arguing that the 2017 notification applied prospectively and could not nullify their prior valid appointments

1. Whether the NCTE notification dated June 9, 2017, prescribing NET/SLET/Ph.D. qualifications, has retrospective effect on faculty members appointed under previous regulations

2. Whether the removal of the petitioners by Respondent No. 4 based on the subsequent notification was legally sustainable

The court applied the principle of non-retroactivity of administrative notifications, specifically interpreting the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Regulations and the notification dated May 29, 2017 (published June 9, 2017)

Para 1(2) of said notification, which states it shall come into force on the date of publication

The court affirmed the doctrine that fresh eligibility criteria cannot nullify existing valid appointments in Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) unless expressly stated otherwise by the legislature

The Court examined the submissions of Respondent No. 2 (NCTE), which admitted that the notification dated June 9, 2017, amending the NCTE Regulations, 2014 (specifically Appendix 4 and 13), has no retrospective operation

The Court noted that the notification itself specifies under Para 1(2) that it is prospective and intended only for fresh appointments made on or after June 9, 2017

Since the petitioners were appointed under the then-prevailing 2009/2014 Regulations and the notification did not contain provisions to nullify existing staff approvals, the Court found that Respondent No. 4 erred in applying the new standards to terminate the petitioners' services

The Court held that the mandatory qualifications of NET/SLET/Ph.D. introduced in 2017 apply prospectively and do not affect the services of those already appointed

The respondents were directed to provide all consequential benefits to the petitioners within three months of receipt of the order