https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300581 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. en-us Tue, 18 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Feb 2022 20:38:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300581 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300581