The Delhi High Court has upheld the All India Council for Technical Education’s (AICTE) rule that makes a PhD degree mandatory for lecturers seeking the highest academic grade pay in government polytechnics. The ruling settles a long-running dispute raised by senior lecturers who argued that they were unfairly denied higher pay despite decades of service.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by lecturers working under the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Background of the Case
The petitioners were appointed as lecturers between 1989 and 1999 in various government polytechnics in Delhi. Over the years, they moved up through the career ladder and currently hold the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade). They draw a salary under the pay band of ₹37,400–67,000 with an Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of ₹9,000.
Their grievance arose when some junior lecturers, who held PhD degrees, were granted a higher AGP of ₹10,000. The petitioners, who do not possess PhDs, continued to remain at AGP ₹9,000.
Challenging this distinction, the lecturers approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing that AICTE’s 2016 clarification linking the ₹10,000 AGP to possession of a PhD was arbitrary and discriminatory. The Tribunal rejected their plea, prompting them to move the High Court.
What the Petitioners Argued
Before the High Court, the lecturers contended that when they were appointed, a PhD was not required for recruitment or career progression. They argued that earlier AICTE regulations from 2010 and the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) of 2012 did not mandate a PhD for lecturers in Selection Grade to be considered for higher pay.
Read also:- Father Living With Second Woman Can’t Seek Child Custody: Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Family Court Order
According to them, the 2016 clarification introduced a new eligibility condition mid-way through their careers, creating an unfair divide between PhD and non-PhD lecturers.
“The distinction has no rational basis and violates the constitutional guarantee of equality,” their counsel submitted, referring to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which ensure equality before law and equal opportunity in public employment.
Stand of the Government and AICTE
The Delhi government and AICTE defended the policy, stating that AICTE is a statutory expert body entrusted with maintaining academic standards in technical education.
They argued that higher academic qualifications like a PhD reflect deeper subject expertise and research capability, which justifies higher pay. The differentiation, they said, was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory but rooted in academic policy.
The respondents also relied on Supreme Court rulings that caution courts against interfering in academic matters decided by expert bodies.
Court’s Observations
After examining the regulations and past judgments, the High Court made it clear that decisions on academic qualifications fall primarily within the domain of expert bodies like AICTE.
The bench observed that courts are “neither equipped nor expected to substitute their views for that of statutory academic authorities,” unless a rule is shown to be completely arbitrary or illegal.
It noted that while a PhD was not mandatory for lecturer appointments before the year 2000, the policy decision to incentivise higher qualifications cannot be faulted.
Read also:- No Pension After Two Decades of Absence: Rajasthan High Court Rejects Claim, Flags Missing Service Files
“The prescription of a PhD qualification is intended to encourage higher academic standards and improve the quality of technical education,” the court observed.
The judges also pointed out that similar distinctions based on PhD qualifications have already been upheld by the Supreme Court in other cases involving teaching staff.
Why the Court Rejected the Equality Argument
The court held that treating PhD holders as a separate category for higher pay has a clear and logical purpose. Encouraging teachers to pursue advanced research degrees serves the broader goal of improving education quality.
“The differentiation between lecturers possessing a PhD and those who do not is based on a rational classification,” the bench said, adding that such a policy does not violate Articles 14 or 16.
Read also:- Madras High Court Revives Cheque Bounce Case, Condoned 100-Day Delay Citing Manager’s Illness
It further clarified that the 2016 clarification did not take away any vested right of the petitioners, as the higher AGP was never an automatic entitlement without meeting prescribed conditions.
Final Decision
Finding no legal flaw in the AICTE’s policy or the Tribunal’s earlier orders, the Delhi High Court dismissed all three writ petitions.
“The impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference,” the court concluded, bringing the long-standing pay dispute to an end.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Tiwari & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
