Ph.D. Not Mandatory for Principal Post under AICTE Regulations

The Supreme Court held that a Ph.D. was not mandatory for the post of Principal under the 2010 AICTE Regulations. The 2016 AICTE Notification did not retrospectively change eligibility conditions, and existing appointments should not be affected by such changes. The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the promotion of the Appellants, allowing their appointments to remain undisturbed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Ph.D. is mandatory for appointment to the post of Principal under the 2010 AICTE Regulations.
2. Whether the 2016 AICTE Notification retrospectively 'clarifies' eligibility conditions for appointment as 'Principal'.
3. Whether retrospective changes in qualificatory requirements can affect the existing appointments.

Detailed Analysis:

(i) Is Ph.D. mandatory for appointment to the post of 'Principal' under the 2010 AICTE RegulationsRs.

The primary issue was whether the 2010 AICTE Regulations mandated a Ph.D. degree for the post of Principal. The 2010 AICTE Regulations provided two sets of qualifications for the Principal position: one requiring a Ph.D. in Engineering and the other without such a requirement. The High Court interpreted the AICTE criteria to imply that Ph.D. was mandatory, relying on a decision from the High Court of Kerala and the 2016 AICTE Notification. However, the Supreme Court found that the 2010 AICTE Regulations allowed for either qualification, emphasizing the phrase "or" in the criteria. The Court noted that Ph.D. was not mandatory but provided a relaxation in the required work experience, thus making it optional for the appointing authority to specify either of the two criteria. The interpretation that Ph.D. was optional was supported by the fact that multiple Heads of Department (HODs) from different fields could become eligible for the Principal post, and making Ph.D. mandatory would arbitrarily restrict the pool of eligible candidates.

(ii) Does the 2016 AICTE Notification retrospectively 'clarify' eligibility conditions for appointment as 'Principal'Rs.

The High Court had held that the 2016 AICTE Notification, which clarified that Ph.D. was essential for the Principal post, applied retrospectively. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the 2016 AICTE Notification was not intended to alter the existing law but to restate what was already explicit in the 2010 AICTE Regulations. The Court emphasized that 'clarificatory' notifications should not be used to retrospectively change the law unless there was an ambiguity in the original regulations, which was not the case here. The 2016 AICTE Notification merely reiterated the existing position of law and did not introduce any new eligibility conditions.

(iii) Whether retrospective changes in qualificatory requirements can affect the existing appointmentsRs.

The Court held that even if the 2016 AICTE Notification was considered clarificatory, it should not affect appointments made based on the understanding of the eligibility conditions at the time. The Court cited precedents stating that vested rights cannot be impaired by retrospective changes in law. The Appellants, who did not possess Ph.D. degrees but met the experience requirements under the 2014 Chhattisgarh Rules, were found suitable for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Court concluded that their appointments should remain undisturbed, as they were made in accordance with one of the eligibility criteria prescribed under the 2010 AICTE Regulations.

Conclusion:

The appeals were allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside. The writ petition challenging the promotion of the Appellants was dismissed without any order as to costs. The Supreme Court held that Ph.D. was not mandatory under the 2010 AICTE Regulations, the 2016 AICTE Notification did not retrospectively alter the eligibility conditions, and the existing appointments should not be affected by retrospective changes in qualificatory requirements.

---