THE SECRETARY, ALL INDIA SHRI SHIVAJI MEMORIAL SOCIETY (AISSMS) AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                 [2025] 5 S.C.R. 342 : 2025 INSC 422

     The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society
                      (AISSMS) and Ors.
                                v.
             The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
                  (Civil Appeal No(s). 4564-4567 of 2025)
                                 01 April 2025
           [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the respondents who have admittedly completed three
       years of service in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 (on
       01.01.2006) are now entitled for pay band of Rs.37400- 67000 and
       AGP of Rs.9000; also, whether they are liable to be re-designated
       as Associate Professors.

                                  Headnotes†
       Service Law – Movement to a higher pay scale – When not
       entitled to – All India Council for Technical Education Act,
       1987 – Vide notification dated 15.03.2000, Ph.D. was made a
       mandatory qualification for Lecturers/Assistant Professors
       for the first time – Respondents appointed after 15.03.2000,
       who were non-Ph.D. and had also failed to acquire the same
       within seven years of appointment as was required under
       a subsequent notification of 2005, if entitled to the benefits
       of 2010 notification prescribing the pay structure and
       redesignation of Assistant Professors:
       Held: No – Respondents appointed after 15.03.2000, who were
       non-Ph.D. and had also failed to acquire the same within seven
       years of appointment as was required, cannot be given the benefit
       of 2010 notification inasmuch as they cannot be given a higher
       pay scale or re-designated as an Associate Professor – ‘incumbent
       Assistant Professor’ in the 2010 notification only includes such
       Assistant Professors working on the post who had a Ph.D.
       qualification at the time of their appointment or who though did
       not have a Ph.D. qualification at the time of their appointment
       but subsequently in terms of the notification dated 15.03.2000
       r/w subsequent notification dated 28.11.2005 acquired Ph.D.
       within seven years of their appointment or those appointed prior

* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                               343

    The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS)
            and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

     to 15.03.2000; when Ph.D. was not an essential qualification,
     continued uninterruptedly. [Para 27]

     Judicial review – Of decisions of expert bodies in academic
     matters like qualification for admission of students;
     qualifications required by teachers for appointment; salary;
     promotion, entitlement to a higher pay scale etc. – Qualification
     for teachers in Engineering Institutes prescribed by All India
     Council for Technical Education (AICTE) – Ph.D. made an
     essential qualification:
     Held: AICTE which is an expert body mandated by law to prescribe
     essential qualifications for a teaching post, and hence, this Court
     cannot question the logic and wisdom of this expert body which
     prescribes the essential qualifications for these posts – The
     responsibility of fixing qualifications for purposes of appointment,
     promotion etc. of staff or qualifications for admissions, is that
     of expert bodies (AICTE in the present case), and so long as
     qualifications prescribed are not shown to be arbitrary or perverse,
     the Courts will not interfere – The qualification of Ph.D. has not
     been challenged in this case on the ground that it should not have
     been made an essential qualification – Further, in the present
     case, the law not only prescribes qualifications but also gives
     the consequences of not having these qualifications – There is
     nothing arbitrary in such prescriptions – Thus, courts must be slow
     in interfering with the opinion of experts in regard to academic
     standards – Powers of judicial review should only be exercised
     in cases where prescribed qualification or condition is against the
     law, arbitrary or involves interpretation of any principle of law – All
     India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. [Paras 24, 25]

                               Case Law Cited
     Christy James Jose and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2016
     SCC OnLine SC 1817; Gelus Ram Sahu v. Surendra Kumar Singh
     [2020] 4 SCR 764 : (2023) 4 SCC 484 – distinguished.
     All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan
     & Ors. [2009] 3 SCR 859 : (2009) 11 SCC 726; Medical Council
     of India v. Sarang & Ors. [2001] Supp. 2 SCR 275 : (2001) 8
     SCC 427 – relied on.
     Sanjay Shrirangrao Surwase and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and
     Ors. [W.P. No. 6001 of 2013] – referred to.
344                                                           [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                                  List of Acts
       All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987.

                               List of Keywords
       Lecturers/Assistant Professors; Associate Professors; Ph.D. made
       an essential qualification; No acquired Ph.D. within seven years of
       appointment; Re-designation as Associate Professors; Teachers
       in Engineering institute; 6th Central Pay Commission; Revised
       pay scale; Mandatory qualification; All India Council for Technical
       Education (AICTE); Engineering and technical institutes; Movement
       to a higher pay scale; Stoppage of increments; Clarificatory
       notification; Amending notification; Incumbent assistant professor
       and incumbent lecturers.

                              Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 4564-4567
       of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2017 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 5402 of 2012 and WP No.
       8020 of 2016 and dated 22.12.2018 in RP No. 111 of 2018 and
       RP No. 72 of 2018
       With
       Civil Appeal No. 4568 of 2025

                           Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellants:
       Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv., Arjun Garg, Kriti Gupta, Devangana
       Singh, Arjun Garg, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Ms. Sanya Shukla.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Abhay Anturkar, Vaibhav Yeshwant Kulkarni, Saurabh Mishra,
       Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
       Pande, Ms. Aagam Kaur, Kartikey, Ms. Gayatri Agarwal, Ms.
       Shubhangi Agarwal, Utkarsh Kumar, Harish Pandey, Anil Soni,
       Abhay Anil Anturkar, Vaibhav Yeshwant Kulkarni, Ms. Sneha
       Botwe, Dhruv Tank, Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank, Aniruddha
       Awalgaonkar, Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, Bhagwant Deshpande, Ms. Subhi
       Pastor, Vaibhav Y Kulkarni.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                          345

     The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS)
             and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Judgment

     Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1.   Leave granted.
2.   By means of the Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.
     7058-7061 of 2019, the appellant-Society seeks to challenge
     the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated
     17.07.2017 as well as the order dated 22.12.2018, passed in review
     later. The impugned orders of the High Court direct the appellant-
     Society to extend the benefit of revised pay scales under the 6th
     Central Pay Commission to the Respondent-teachers, who were
     the original Writ Petitioners before the Bombay High Court. The
     Respondent-teachers are the ones who are presently teaching
     in engineering and technical institutes run and managed by the
     Appellant-Society, which is a private body and is not under the
     grant in aid of the Government.
3.   Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent-teachers, who
     possess a Master’s degree in their field, were appointed as
     Lecturers/Assistant Professors by the appellant-Society in the
     institutes between 1995 and 2009. Requisite approval for their
     appointment was taken from the concerned Universities to which
     the said institutes were affiliated. It is also an admitted fact that the
     Respondent-teachers, with the exception of one teacher, were not
     able to acquire Ph.D.’s within seven years of their appointment in
     service, as was required.
4.   At this stage, we may need to refer to the prescribed qualification
     of teachers in an Engineering Institute, which is laid down by the
     All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to
     as ‘AICTE’). AICTE is a body which was initially constituted in the
     year 1945 as an advisory body to the Government of India but was
     given a statutory status under the All India Council for Technical
     Education Act of 1987 (for short ‘1987 Act’) and we now can trace
     its formation as a Statutory Body under Section 3 of the 1987 Act.
     Its powers and functions are given under Section 10 of the 1987
     Act, which read as under:
346                                                          [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


            “10. Functions of the Council.— (1) It shall be the duty
            of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit
            for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of
            technical education and maintenance of standards and
            for the purposes of performing its functions under this
            Act, the Council may—
            -----x-----x-----x-----
            (i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula,
            physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff
            qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and
            examinations;”
5.     Thus, under the powers referred above, AICTE is mandated to
       provide qualifications for teachers that would include Lecturers,
       Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors, of
       Engineering and Technical Colleges.
6.     It is an admitted position by both the sides here that the crucial date
       when Ph.D. was prescribed for the first time as a qualification for
       Lecturers/Assistant Professors is 15.03.2000. Prior to 15.03.2000,
       Ph.D. was not an essential and mandatory qualification for Lecturers/
       Assistant Professors. Out of the nine private respondents before
       us, who were also petitioners before the High Court, four were
       appointed prior to 15.03.2000 and the remaining five were appointed
       post 15.03.2000, when the notification dated 15.03.2000 had come
       into effect.
7.     The subject matter of the notification dated 15.03.2000 reads as
       under:
            “AICTE NOTIFICATION ON REVISION OF PAY-SCALES
            AND ASSOCIATED TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
            SERVICE OF TEACHERS, LIBRARIANS AND PHYSICAL
            EDUCATION PERSONNEL FOR DEGREE LEVEL
            TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS.”
       The above notification of AICTE prescribed minimum qualification
       for various teaching posts in degree level technical institutes
       and further prescribed qualifications for Assistant Professor as
       follows:
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                            347

    The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS)
            and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.


                                                                    Appendix-E
                                   Table E-1
            MINIMUM QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE PRESCRIBED FOR
            TEACHING POST IN DEGREE LEVEL TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS
                              ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY DISCIPLINES
      SI.    CADRE     QUALIFICATION EXPERIENCE             QUALIFICATION
      No.                                                   AND EXPERIENCE
                                                            FOR CANDIDATES
                                                            FROM INDUSTRY
                                                            & PROFESSION
      2      Assistant PhD degree      3 years              Candidates from
             Professor with the first  experience in        Industry/Profession
                       class Degree at Teaching/Industry/ with First Class
                       Bachelor’s or   Research at the      Bachelor’s
                       Master’s level  level of Lecturer or Degree in the
                       in appropriate  equivalent           appropriate branch
                       branch of                            of Engineering/
                       Engineering/                         Technology or First
                       Technology                           Class Master’s
                                                            Degree in the
                                                            appropriate branch
                                                            of Engineering/
                                                            Technology
                                                                   And
                                                            Professional
                                                            work which is
                                                            significant and can
                                                            be recognized as
                                                            equivalent to Ph.D.
                                                            degree and with 5
                                                            years experience
                                                            would also be
                                                            eligible.

     Under the “CAREER ADVANCEMENT” heading of the notification
     dated 15.03.2000, Clause 7 (b) was as follows:
             (b) For movement into grades of Assistant Professor and
             above, the minimum eligibility criterion would be Ph.D.
             Those teachers without Ph.D. can go upto the level of
             lecturer (Selection grade).
348                                                          [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


8.     Then comes AICTE notification of 2005 issued on 28.11.2005,
       which again prescribes the following minimum qualification for
       various teaching posts in degree-level technical institutes and further
       prescribed qualifications for Assistant Professor as follows:

        SL.          CADRE             PRESCRIBED QUALIFICATIONS
                                            AND EXPERIENCE
        NO.
         2.        ASSISTANT
                  PROFESSOR
              QUALIFICATION &          Ph.D degree with the first class at
              EXPERIENCE FOR           Bachelor’s or Master’s level in the
              CANDIDATES FROM          appropriate branch of Engineering/
              TEACHING                 Technology with 2 years experience
                                       in Teaching / Industry / Research at
                                       the level of Lecturer or equivalent.
                                                        OR
                                       First Class at Master’s level in the
                                       appropriate branch of Engineering /
                                       Technology with 5 years experience
                                       in teaching / industry /Research at
                                       the level of lecturer or equivalent.
                                       Such candidates will be required to
                                       obtain Ph.D degree within a period of
                                       7 years from the date of appointment
                                       as Assistant Professor. In the case of
                                       Universities / University departments
                                       and the institutions offering PG
                                       programmes / Research, Ph.D
                                       is a must. For candidates from
                                       Industry, professional experience
                                       in R&D and patents would be
                                       desirable requirement failing which
                                       the increments will be stopped until
                                       Ph.D is earned.

       Thus, there can be no doubt that a candidate could be appointed
       as an Assistant Professor after 15.03.2000, only if he/she had a
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                          349

     The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS)
             and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

     Ph.D. degree with a first class at Bachelor’s or Master’s level in
     their appropriate branch of Engineering and two years of teaching
     experience. A candidate could also be appointed Assistant Professor
     if he/she had a first class at Master’s level in their appropriate branch
     of Engineering and five years of teaching experience but such a
     candidate will be required to obtain a Ph.D. within a period of seven
     years from the date of appointment as Assistant Professor.
9.   We are presently concerned with such teachers amongst the
     respondents who were neither Ph.D. at the time of their appointment
     nor have they acquired Ph.D. within seven years.
10. After the two notifications referred above comes the AICTE notification
    of 05.03.2010. This notification again prescribes qualification for
    teachers in technical institutes and reiterates the same qualification.
    In addition, the notification also prescribes “the pay structure for
    different categories of teachers and equivalent positions”. With this
    notification, the designation of lecturers was changed to Assistant
    Professors, and consequent to this notification there would now be
    only three categories of teachers in universities and colleges (including
    technical institutions) i.e. Assistant Professor, Associate Professor,
    and Professor, which becomes clear from a perusal of the following
    portion of the notification:
           “General
           (i) There shall be only three designations in respect of
           teachers in universities and colleges, namely, Assistant
           Professors, Associate Professors and Professors…..”
11. Further, the pay structure and re-designation of Assistant Professors
    is prescribed in the 2010 AICTE notification and the provision with
    which we are presently concerned is as below:
           “Revised Pay Scales, Service conditions and Career
           Advancement Scheme for teachers and equivalent
           positions:
           The pay structure for different categories of teachers
           and equivalent positions shall be as indicated below:
           (a)   Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/
                 Professors in Technical Institutions
350                                                         [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


                 (i)    …
                 (ii)   …
                        ...
                 (ix) Incumbent Assistant Professor and Incumbent
                      Lecturers (Selection Grade) who have completed
                      3 years in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.12000-
                      18300 on 01.01.2006 shall be placed in Pay
                      Band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP Pay of
                      Rs.9000 and shall be re-designated as Associate
                      Professor.”
12. The respondent-teachers claim the benefits of the above provision.
    The Assistant Professors i.e., the respondents who had completed
    three years of service in pre-revised pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 on
    01.01.2006 wanted to be placed in the Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000
    with AGP of Rs.9000 and to be designated as Associate Professor.
    This was denied to them by the appellant-Society for the reason
    that they did not possess a Ph.D. degree which was a mandatory
    requirement to be an Assistant Professor. The respondents had filed
    a Writ Petition before the High Court, as they were being denied this
    by the present Appellant.
       This is the precise dispute in the present case, and the question
       to be decided by this Court is whether the respondents who have
       admittedly completed three years of service in the pre-revised pay
       scale of Rs.12000-18300 (on 01.01.2006) are now entitled for pay
       band of Rs.37400-67000 and AGP of Rs.9000 and also whether they
       are liable to be redesignated as Associate Professors.
13. Relying upon the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Bombay
    High Court at Aurangabad in Sanjay Shrirangrao Surwase and
    Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors (WP No. 6001 of 2013), same
    relief was given in favour of the respondents herein as well by the
    Bombay High Court in the impugned order dated 17.07.2017, and
    they were to be re-designated as Associate Professor and be given
    a higher pay scale as per the 6th Pay Commission. When the present
    appellant had challenged the impugned order dated 17.07.2017 (of
    the Bombay High Court) before this Court, the question which had
    come up before this court was whether the teachers were qualified
    enough to be given the benefit as they had sought for. The appellant
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                             351

    The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS)
            and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

     before this Court had argued that the decision of the Aurangabad
     Bench of the Bombay High Court in the earlier petition cannot be
     applicable in the case of present respondents as it has been made
     applicable in the impugned order dated 17.07.2017 for the reason that
     whereas the petitioners before the Aurangabad Bench were qualified,
     the respondents in the present case lack the requisite qualifications.
     The obvious indication of the Appellant was on the Ph.D. degree. The
     petition was, therefore, disposed of by this Court in Special Leave
     Petition (Civil) Nos. 27975-27976 of 2017 by granting liberty to the
     appellant to file a Review Petition before the Bombay High Court.
     The following order was passed:
           “Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned senior counsel
           appearing for the petitioners submits that the present
           case is not covered in terms of the decision in Sanjay
           Shrirangrao Surwase & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
           & Ors. rendered in Writ Petition No. 6001/2013 on the
           file of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay at
           Aurangabad. One main distinction pointed out is that, it
           was a case of qualified teachers whereas in this case the
           teachers are not qualified as per A.I.C.T.E. and not entitled
           to the benefit of designation and consequent benefit of
           Sixth Pay Commission.
           We do not find that this aspect has been addressed before
           the High Court and nor has the High Court dealt with it. In
           the event of filing such a review within thirty days from today
           the same may not be dismissed on the ground of delay.
           The special leave petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.
           We make it clear that we have not considered the matter
           on merits.”
                                                  (Emphasis provided)

14. In terms of the liberty granted by this Court vide the above-quoted
    order, the Appellant-Society then filed Review Petitions before the
    Bombay High Court. The High Court, while dismissing the review
    petitions took note of the fact that the issue of the earlier Bombay High
    Court (Aurangabad Bench) judgment in Sanjay Shrirangrao Surwase
    being distinguishable on facts was not raised by the Appellant-Society
    earlier. The High Court took note of the submissions on behalf of
352                                                        [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       the Respondent-teachers to the effect that the teachers who were
       petitioners in the Sanjay Shrirangrao Surwase also did not have
       a Ph.D., and a specific averment in that regard was made in the
       Reply Affidavit before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the
       review petitions filed by the Appellant, as there was no difference
       between the two batch of petitioners regarding their qualifications.
15. Be that as it may, these are the two orders (dated17.07.2017 and
    22.12.2018) which are presently under challenge before this Court.
    Since the decision of this Court dated 03.11.2017 wherein liberty
    was given to the appellant to file a review clearly states that this
    Court had not expressed anything on the merit of the case, we have
    heard the matter in its entirety on every aspect of the matter argued
    from both the sides.
16. As we have already indicated above, there are two different categories
    of teachers before us as respondents. We have one set who were
    appointed prior to 15.03.2000 when Ph.D. was made a minimum
    qualification for the first time; and then the other class of teachers
    who were appointed after 15.03.2000, when Ph.D. was an essential
    qualification.
17. As far as such teachers are concerned who were appointed prior
    to 15.03.2000, we do not see any reason to disturb the findings
    of the High Court regarding their entitlements under the 6th Pay
    Commission, etc. All the same, the other half of respondents, who
    were appointed post the AICTE notification dated 15.03.2000 had
    come into force, they fall in a different category altogether. These
    are the teachers who were appointed after 15.03.2000 and were not
    having Ph.D. qualification though it was mandatory and moreover
    had also failed to acquire a Ph.D. within seven years as stipulated
    in the AICTE notification of 2005 as well as their appointment order.
    At this juncture, we would like to record the submission made at the
    Bar that one of these respondents i.e., Dr. Madhavi Ajay Pradhan
    who though was appointed as Assistant Professor on 14.06.2004
    (i.e. after 2000 AICTE Notification) has gone ahead and completed
    her Ph.D. She also cannot be denied the benefit of the Bombay High
    Court decision presently under challenge before this Court.
18. The learned Counsel for the private respondents Sri Abhay Atul
    Anturkar would, however, argue that the powers vested with AICTE
    were statutory in nature under Section 23 of the 1987 Act, which
    reads as follows:
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                           353

    The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS)
            and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

           23. Power to make regulations.—(1) The Council may,
           by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations not
           inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, and the rules
           generally to carry out the purposes of this Act.
           (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of
           the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all
           or any of the following matters, namely:—
           (a) regulating the meetings of the Council and the procedure
           for conducting business thereat;
           (b) the terms and conditions of service of the officers and
           employees of the Council;
           (c) regulating the meetings of the Executive Committee
           and the procedure for conducting business thereat;
           (d) the area of concern, the constitution, and powers and
           functions of the Board of Studies;
           (e) the region for which the Regional Committee be
           established and the constitution and functions of such
           Committee.
19. Learned Counsel for the private respondents would further argue
    that notification which is clarificatory in nature had come out on 4th
    January, 2016, issued by the AICTE in exercise of powers under the
    above-quoted Section 23 of the 1987 Act . The notification dated
    04.01.2016 was to clarify “on certain issues / anomalies pertaining
    to qualifications, pay scales, service conditions, career advancement
    schemes (CAS) etc. for teachers and other academic staff of technical
    institutions (degree /diploma)”
     The clarification with which we are presently concerned, and it is in
     the form of a questionnaire is as follows:

      S.No.    Issue                             Clarification
      53       Whether Asst. Professor           Such candidates will be
               (Re-designated as Associate       required to complete
               Professor w.e.f. 1-1-2006),       Ph.D. within 7 years from
               who are not able to complete      the date of Joining, failing
               the Ph.D. in seven years from     which increments shall
               the date of Joining (Direct/      be stopped until Ph.D. is
               CAS) will be reverted back.       earned.
354                                                        [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


20. The learned Counsel for the respondents then relies upon the
    judgment of this Court in Christy James Jose and Ors v. State of
    Kerala and Ors 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1817 and would argue that
    the AICTE clarification of 04.01.2016 has a statutory status, and in
    terms of the same, the only consequence of non-completion of Ph.D.
    within seven years would be the stoppage of increments. We have
    gone through the above decision. The above case does not hold that
    the 2016 clarification has statutory status. In fact, while interpreting
    Clause 53 of the 2016 clarification (on which the respondents also
    rely), the decision only says that the failure to acquire a Ph.D. within
    seven years can result in stoppage of increments but cannot result
    in termination of services. The above decision is silent on the aspect
    of movement to a higher pay scale, which is the primary issue in
    the present case.
21. In any case, the interpretation of the 2016 clarification has been
    settled by a subsequent three-judge bench decision of this Court in
    Gelus Ram Sahu v. Surendra Kumar Singh (2020) 4 SCC 484,
    which has been placed before us by Sri Ravindra Shrivastava,
    the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant. He would
    argue that the clarificatory notification of 2016 is of no relevance as
    it only reiterates the position regarding qualification, re-designation,
    and pay scales of Assistant Professors and Associate Professors
    which were already provided in the AICTE notification of 2010. The
    learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also argues that the 2016
    notification does not have statutory status, as is being projected by
    the respondents. As stated above, he relies upon the later three-
    judge Bench decision of this Court in Gelus Ram Sahu (supra)
    where it was observed that:
          “24. “Clarificatory” legislations are an exception to the
          general rule of presuming prospective application of laws,
          unless given retrospective effect either expressly or by
          necessary implication. In order to attract this exception,
          mere mention in the title or in any provision that the
          legislation is “clarificatory” would not suffice. Instead, it
          must substantively be proved that the law was in fact
          “clarificatory”…..
          25. The present case is one where except for the
          title, nothing contained therein indicates that the
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                            355

    The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS)
            and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

           2016 AICTE Notification was clarificatory in nature. The
           said Notification is framed in a question-answer style and
           merely restates what has already been made explicit in the
           2010 AICTE Regulations. There seems to be no intent to
           alter the position of law but instead only to simplify what
           the AICTE had resolved through its original regulation.
           The 2016 AICTE Notification is a response to the doubts
           put forth to AICTE by the public. This is evident from the
           stand put forth by AICTE before us in its reply as well
           as during the course of hearing, namely, that there is no
           retrospective alteration in the qualification prescribed for
           the post of Principal.
           26. Even if the 2016 AICTE Notification was clarificatory,
           it must be demonstrated that there was an ambiguity in
           the criteria for appointment to the posts of Principal, which
           needed to be remedied. Clarificatory notifications are
           distinct from amendatory notifications, and the former ought
           not to be a surreptitious tool of achieving the ends of the
           latter. If there exists no ambiguity, there arises no question
           of making use of a clarificatory notification. Hence, in the
           absence of any omission in the 2010 AICTE Regulations,
           the 2016 AICTE Notification despite being generally
           clarificatory must be held to have reiterated the existing
           position of law.
22. We must note that this Court in the above case has not given its
    findings in general terms between clarificatory notifications as distinct
    from statutory amendments, what it was actually comparing were
    the precise two notifications with which we are presently concerned
    i.e., notification dated 05.03.2010 and clarificatory notification dated
    04.01.2016. It was in that context that it was held that a clarificatory
    notification cannot be a surreptitious tool for achieving the ends of
    an amending notification. “If there exists no ambiguity, there arises
    no question of making use of a clarificatory notification. Hence, in
    the absence of any omission in the 2010 AICTE Regulations, the
    2016 AICTE Notification despite being generally clarificatory must
    be held to have reiterated the existing position of law”.
23. Moreover, the provision on which the private respondents are relying
    upon clearly stipulates that such assistant professors who are not
356                                                         [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       having Ph.D. qualification shall acquire the same within seven years
       failing which they will not be given their increment. Now when the
       provision even in its clarificatory notification denies an increment,
       then by logic such teachers cannot be given the higher pay scale. In
       any case, the notifications of 2005 and 2010 leaves nothing in doubt
       that such teachers will not be given the higher pay scale.
24. To clarify, the phrase “incumbent Assistant Professors and incumbent
    Lecturers” given in Clause (ix) of 2010 Notification of AICTE would
    mean such Assistant Professors and Lecturers who have the essential
    qualifications including Ph.D. or those who were appointed prior to
    15.03.2000 without Ph.D. This is the only meaningful manner in which
    the above provision can be read. AICTE which is an expert body
    mandated by law, inter alia, to prescribe essential qualifications for a
    teaching post, and hence we cannot question the logic and wisdom
    of this expert body which prescribes the essential qualifications for
    these posts. No one has challenged such a qualification, which is
    Ph.D. in the present case, on the ground that it should not have been
    made an essential qualification. Further in the present case, the law
    not only prescribes qualifications but also gives the consequences
    of not having these qualifications. We find nothing arbitrary in such
    prescriptions.
25. This Court time and again has reiterated that the responsibility, of
    fixing qualifications for purposes of appointment, promotion etc. of
    staff or qualifications for admissions, is that of expert bodies (in the
    present case, the AICTE), and so long as qualifications prescribed
    are not shown to be arbitrary or perverse, the Courts will not interfere.
    In All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar
    Dhawan & Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 726, this Court while dealing with
    the question regarding decision taken by AICTE whether a bridge
    course should be permitted to make diploma-holders eligible for
    engineering course, observed as under:
            “15. … AICTE consists of professional and technical
            experts in the field of education qualified and equipped
            to decide on those issues. In fact, a statutory duty is cast
            on them to decide these matters.
            16. The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic
            or technical background to substitute themselves in place of
            statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                         357

    The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS)
            and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

           in academic matters involving standards and quality of
           technical education…
           17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and
           the role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it
           is a question of educational policy or an issue involving
           academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any
           provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted,
           applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with
           education, the courts will step in…”
     In other words, normally, courts should not interfere with the
     decisions taken by expert statutory bodies regarding academic
     matter: may it relate to qualification for admission of students or
     qualification required by teachers for appointment, salary, promotion,
     entitlement to a higher pay scale etc. However, this does not mean
     that Courts are deprived of their powers of judicial review. It only
     means that courts must be slow in interfering with the opinion of
     experts in regard to academic standards and powers of judicial
     review should only be exercised in cases where prescribed
     qualification or condition is against the law, arbitrary or involves
     interpretation of any principle of law [Also see: Medical Council of
     India v. Sarang & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 427]. Consequently, where a
     candidate does not possess the minimum qualifications, prescribed
     by an expert body, for appointment or promotion to a particular post
     in an educational institution, such a candidate will not be entitled
     to get appointed or will be deprived of certain benefits, which is
     the case we have in hand.
26. We also have to take into account the fact that in the present situation
    the law itself creates two different classes, an Assistant Professor
    with Ph.D. and another Assistant Professor without Ph.D. If the salary,
    designation, etc. would remain unchanged for the two irrespective
    of whether one has Ph.D. or not, as the private respondents would
    like us to accept then it may have a negative fallout in the quality of
    teaching. Our focus is as much with the quality of teaching as with
    the equity in service conditions.
27. Under the circumstances, and in terms of what we have held above,
    the respondents who were appointed after 15.03.2000, who were
    non-Ph.D. and had also failed to acquire the same within seven
    years of appointment as was required, cannot be given the benefit
358                                                         [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       of 2010 notification inasmuch as they cannot be given a higher
       pay scale or re-designated as an Associate Professor. The phrase
       ‘incumbent Assistant Professor’ in the 2010 notification, to our mind,
       would only include such Assistant Professors working on the post
       who had a Ph.D. qualification at the time of their appointment or
       who though did not have a Ph.D. qualification at the time of their
       appointment but subsequently in terms of the notification dated
       15.03.2000 read with subsequent notification dated 28.11.2005
       acquired Ph.D. within seven years of their appointment or those
       appointed prior to 15.03.2000; when Ph.D. was not an essential
       qualification, continued uninterruptedly. Those teachers who
       were appointed after 15.03.2000 and had failed to acquire Ph.D.
       qualification even thereafter will not be entitled to the benefits of
       the 2010 notification given in Clause (ix).
28. The appellant shall release the higher pay scale to those respondents
    who are appointed prior to 15.03.2000 with an interest of 7.5% per
    annum on the arrears within a period of four weeks from today
    failing which the interest shall be calculated at the rate of 15% per
    annum. These are Mr. Pandurang Abhimanyu Patil, Mrs. Mangal
    Hemant Dhend, Mr. Diwakar Haribhau Joshi, Mr. Shivanandgouda
    Kallanagouda Biradar. Since we have been apprised at the Bar that
    one of the respondents (Dr. Madhavi Ajay Pradhan), though appointed
    after the AICTE notification of 2000, has acquired Ph.D., the above
    direction is also applicable in her case and appellant shall release
    benefits in her favour subject to proper verification of her Ph.D.
    degree by the appellant. The rest of the private respondents since
    they have failed to acquire Ph.D. within seven years as required,
    cannot be designated as Associate Professors or be entitled for the
    higher pay scale.
29. As and when, these teachers acquire a Ph.D. they would be at liberty
    to move an application before their respective institutions and AICTE
    for grant of higher pay scale and designation of Associate Professor,
    which shall be considered by them in accordance with law.
30. Consequently, the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.7058-7061
    of 2019 is partly allowed in the above terms.
31. Insofar as Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.4787 of 2025 is
    concerned, the amount of Rs.30 lakhs deposited by appellant before
    the High Court shall not be disbursed till the final disposal of review
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                      359

    The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS)
            and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

     petitions pending before the High Court which shall now be decided in
     the light of this judgment as expeditiously as possible. The impugned
     order of the High Court is modified to that extent and the appeal is
     disposed of in the above terms.
32. Interim order(s), if any, stand(s) vacated.
33. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

     Result of the case: Matters disposed of.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey