AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Hari Shankar, J.
This writ petition assails judgment dated 11 February 2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 3631/2015.
The respondents, who were the applicants in the OA, challenged the retrospective application, of Clauses 3.1 to 3.9 of the All India Council for Technical Education [Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions] (Diploma), Regulations, 20122.
The respondents’ contention was that, as they had been appointed as teachers prior to the enactment of the 2012 Regulations, Clauses 1.3 and 3.1 to 3.9 of the 2012 Regulations could not apply to them.
The Tribunal has agreed with the respondents and has, following the judgment dated 28 January 2025 of this Court in WP (C) 12189/20213, allowed the OA in the following terms:
“Accordingly, we quash and set aside the following:-
(i)clause 1.3 of the All India Council for Technical Education (Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions] (Diploma), Regulations, 2012; and or
(ii)clauses 3 i.e. clauses 3 .1 to 3.9 of the All India Council for Technical Education [Career Advancement: Scheme (CAS) for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions] (Diploma), Regulations, 2012; and/ or
(iii)Quash and set aside the retrospective applicability of impugned clauses 3 i.e. clauses 3.1 to 3.9 of the All India Council for Technical Education [Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions] (Diploma), Regulations, 2012 to the employees; and direct the respondents to grant to the applicants the benefits of pay scales and grade pay together with benefit of Career Advancement Scheme as contemplated under AICTE (Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Diploma) Regulations, 2010.”
Perhaps inadvertently, the manner in which relief has been granted by the Tribunal separates the various reliefs with “and/or”. We presume, therefore, that all the three reliefs (i) to (iii) were granted by the Tribunal.
The All India Council for Technical Education4 has, by the present writ petition, challenged the aforesaid order dated 11 February 2026 of the Tribunal.
We have heard Mr. Anil Soni, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Praveen Swaroop, learned Counsel for Respondents 1 to 12 at some length.
Mr. Soni submits that, insofar as the aspect of retrospective application of Clauses 1.3 and 3.1 to 3.9 of the 2012 Regulations is concerned, he has no quarrel with the judgment of the Tribunal as the issue stands covered by the judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar. However, he submits that the Tribunal ought not to have set aside the Clauses wholesale, as has been done in reliefs (i) and (ii) in the impugned judgment and could only have held that they would not apply to Respondents 1 to 12.
Mr. Swaroop, learned Counsel for Respondents 1 to 12, too, has no objection to a clarification in that regard being provided by this Court.
Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition by clarifying the direction issued by the Tribunal to the extent that Clauses 1.3 and 3.1 to 3.9 of the 2012 Regulations would not stand set aside in their entirety, but would not apply retrospectively to Respondents 1 to 12.
Save and except for the aforesaid clarification, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is upheld.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.