Past service cannot be counted for Career Advancement Scheme benefits if initial appointment qualifications lack First Class degree.

The Petitioner, holding a second-class B.E. degree (1987), was appointed as a Lecturer at K.V.G. Polytechnic, Karnataka, on 04.10.1991

He later joined the GNCTD at Aryabhatt Polytechnic on 20.04.2001 and obtained an M.Tech (First Division) in 2007

On 20.04.2007, he was granted the senior time scale by GNCTD

Following a 2011 notification, the Petitioner sought the preponement of his senior scale by counting his previous continuous service (1991–2001) at K.V.G. Polytechnic under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)

Respondent No. 2 rejected the claim on 12.12.2014, stating that the Petitioner lacked the mandatory first-class degree required for CAS eligibility

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed his challenge on 03.04.2019

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the preponement of the senior time scale under CAS by counting past service despite lacking a first-class degree at the time of initial appointment

2. Whether the relaxation under Clause 5.0(3) of the AICTE Notification dated 30.12.1999 applies to teachers recruited after 01.01.1996

The court primarily applied Clause 9.2 of the AICTE Notification dated 30.12.1999, which mandates that for past service to count toward CAS, the lecturer must have possessed the minimum qualifications prescribed by AICTE at the time of appointment

AICTE Notification dated 28.02.1989 established a "First-Class Bachelor’s Degree" as the minimum qualification for a Lecturer

The court further relied on the AICTE Clarification (Issue No. 44) dated 13.01.2016, which expressly states that no relaxation is admissible for Clause 9.2(b) regarding past service

The court cited State of Orissa Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436, establishing that a teacher without requisite qualifications cannot claim pay scale benefits as the deficiency is a bar that cannot be waived

The Court observed that Clause 9.2(b) and (e) of the 1999 Notification set cumulative, non-negotiable conditions for counting past residential service, specifically requiring that the appointee met AICTE standards at the time of entry

Since the Petitioner held only a second-class degree when appointed in 1991—falling short of the first-class requirement stipulated by AICTE in 1989—he failed the threshold eligibility

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s reliance on the Clause 5.0(3) relaxation, noting it was intended only for incumbents already in service with the DTTE prior to 01.01.1996, whereas the Petitioner was a fresh recruit in 2001

The Petitioner failed to demonstrate compliance with Clause 8.2 (mandatory 8-week refresher courses) or obtain the necessary service record endorsements required by Clause 8.2 and Clause 33 of the 2016 clarification

The 2016 AICTE clarification was deemed an authoritative interpretation that foreclosed judicial or tribunal-led relaxations

The Court affirmed the Tribunal's order, concluding there was no error of law or perversity in denying the benefit

All pending applications were closed