Vasudev Dehalwar vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal

The appellant challenges the order dated 02.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal (hereinafter 'MANIT'), whereby the appellant's appointment/promotion/redesignation as Associate Professor with effect from 09.10.2006 was revoked and he was directed to be reverted to the post of Assistant Professor. The writ petition assailing the said order was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.10.2023 in W.P. No. 21349/2016, and the consequent Review Petition No. 1255/2023 was also dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2025. The present Appeal impugns both the aforementioned orders.

Briefly stated, the facts material to the controversy are as follows. The appellant was appointed as Lecturer in MANIT and was subsequently promoted/redesignated as Associate Professor vide order dated 21.06.2005 (Annexure P-2) with effect from 09.10.2003, with financial benefit operative from 20.06.2005. The said order incorporated a note with the effect that employees not possessing a Ph.D. degree would be required to obtain the same within seven years from the date of promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. A chronological recital of the material events is set out hereunder:

21.06.2005: MANIT issues order promoting/redesignating the appellant as Associate Professor with effect from 09.10.2003, with financial benefit from 20.06.2005. The order noted the seven-year Ph.D. requirement.

31.12.2008: MHRD issued a circular prescribing eligibility criteria for appointments/promotions in educational institutions the applicability of which to NITs subsequently became the source of controversy.

18.08.2009: MHRD issued a communication mandating Ph.D. as a compulsory qualification for promotional posts, admittedly issued after the appellant's promotion in 2006.

08.10.2014: MHRD issued communication (F.No. 3-9/2014-TS-III) directing MANIT to revoke all regular appointments and promotions made without adequate qualifications (Ph.D.) with immediate effect, on the premise that the UGC/MHRD circular dated 31.12.2008 was not applicable to NITs/CFTIs.

02.11.2016: MANIT passed the impugned order (Annexure P-1) revoking the appellant's designation as Associate Professor from the date of conferment i.e. 09.10.2006, notwithstanding that his Ph.D. at Victoria University remained pending.

The foregoing chronology discloses that: (a) the promotion in 2006 was validly conferred under the AICTE Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) norms then in force; (b) the NIT Statutes themselves came into force only on 05.06.2007; (c) the MHRD communications of 2009 and 2014 forming the stated basis for revocation were posterior to the promotion; (d) the MHRD directive dated 08.10.2014 was directed against promotions effected under Institute Order dated 20.08.2010 in respect of twelve specific faculty members, and the appellant's name did not figure in that list; and (e) several other similarly situated faculty members were not subjected to any such action.

Petitioner present in person submits as under: -

The impugned order dated 02.11.2016 proceeds on a fundamentally erroneous premise. The stated basis for revocation was not that the appellant had failed to complete his Ph.D. within seven years of promotion, but that MHRD had directed that promotions made on the basis of the UGC circular dated 31.12.2008 which was not applicable to NITs/CFTIs were liable to be revoked. The order records:

This is legally distinct from penalising an employee for failure to obtain a Ph.D. within seven years.

The AICTE Gazette clarification dated 04.01.2016 at Point No. 53 expressly provides that failure to complete Ph.D. within seven years shall result in stoppage of increments and not in reversion/demotion:

The Supreme Court of India in Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala (Civil Appeal No. 4604 of 2016, decided on 26.04.2016) expressly held that non-acquisition of Ph.D. can at best result in stoppage of increments and cannot result in reversion.

The Supreme Court in Dr. Jiji K.S. and Others v. Shibu K. and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 324, decided on 27.02.2026, authoritatively re-affirmed the ratio of Christy James Jose. The operative holding at paragraph 5 reads:

The promotion of the appellant was effected in October 2006 under the AICTE CAS norms then in force. The NIT Statutes came into force only on 05.06.2007. The subsequent MHRD communications of 2009 and 2014 cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate a promotion validly conferred in 2006, as doing so would entail withdrawal of vested rights without express statutory sanction.

The impugned order constitutes reduction in rank carrying civil consequences equivalent to a major penalty. The appellant did not afford adequate hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution. In terms of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, the validity of an order must be judged by the reasons stated therein.

The action is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Several similarly-placed faculty members were not subjected to reversion. The MHRD communication dated 08.10.2014 was directed against twelve specific faculty members promoted vide order dated 20.08.2010, and the appellant's name does not appear in that list.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petition was rightly dismissed, contending that the appellant was made aware of the seven-year Ph.D. condition, that the MHRD communication dated 08.10.2014 had categorically directed revocation of all promotions made without adequate qualifications, that a show-cause notice was duly issued to which the appellant submitted his reply, and only thereafter was the impugned order passed; and that the AICTE notification of 18.02.2003 and the clarification of 04.01.2016 were neither pleaded nor placed before the learned Single Judge and cannot be agitated for the first time in a Letters Patent Appeal.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and having perused the record, we proceed to consider the matter.

At the outset, it is necessary to note an important distinction which appears to have been glossed over in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The order dated 02.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) does not, on its face, proceed primarily on the grounds that the appellant failed to obtain a Ph.D. within seven years from the date of his promotion. The operative text records:

Thus, the stated basis for revocation was the retrospective application of MHRD's position that the UGC/MHRD circular dated 31.12.2008 was not applicable to NITs/CFTIs, and that the promotion itself was therefore wrongly conferred. This is a fundamentally distinct proposition from penalisation for failure to complete Ph.D. within seven years. The learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition substantially on the basis of the seven-year Ph.D. condition without adequately addressing the actual ground on which the order was passed. This constitutes a material error which warrants correction.

In this regard, it is necessary to notice the controversy surrounding the MHRD letter dated 31.12.2008. The said letter was issued by MHRD in the context of the UGC recommendations relating to the Career Advancement Scheme for teachers in universities and colleges, and extended the benefit of CAS promotions and revised pay scales to certain categories of institutions. MHRD subsequently took the position that this letter was not intended to apply to NITs and CFTIs, which are separately governed by the NIT Act, 2007 and the NIT Statutes, 2007. This retrospective clarification of inapplicability issued in 2014 with reference to a promotion effected in 2006 formed the basis for revoking a promotion that had been conferred and enjoyed for a decade. The constitutional validity of such retrospective invalidation of a promotion validly conferred on the basis of CAS norms in force at the relevant time, raises serious questions which must be answered against the respondents.

On the substantive question of law as to what consequence flows from failure to obtain Ph.D. within the seven-year period, the present case has been materially aided by the subsequent authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Dr. Jiji K.S. and Others v. Shibu K. and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 324, decided on 27.02.2026. The Supreme Court traced the legislative history from the AICTE notification dated 15.03.2000 and the AICTE notification dated 18.02.2003, which permitted promotion to the post of Associate Professor before acquiring Ph.D. while granting a seven-year relaxation. The AICTE Notification dated 28.11.2005 (Sl. No. 2) further prescribed that candidates without Ph.D. at the time of appointment as Assistant Professor shall be required to obtain Ph.D. within 7 years 'failing which the increments will be stopped until Ph.D. is earned’ thus prescribing stoppage of increments, and not reversion, as the consequence. The 2010 AICTE Notification further provided for redesignation of incumbent Assistant Professors/Lecturers (Selection Grade) who had completed 3 years in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.12,000-18,300 on 01.01.2006. The Supreme Court in Dr. Jiji K.S. (supra) expressly endorsed the ratio of Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala (Civil Appeal No. 4604 of 2016) at paragraph 5 of its judgment which reads:

This holding is decisive and binding. The AICTE clarification dated 04.01.2016 at Point No. 53 is in accord therewith, providing expressly that failure to complete Ph.D. within seven years shall result in stoppage of increments and not in reversion.

The learned Single Judge placed reliance upon Dr. Priyadarsini R.S. & Others v. The State of Kerala & Others [SLP (Civil) Diary No. 1917/2021, decided on 02.02.2021]. A careful reading of the operative portion of that order is instructive:

The Supreme Court was only clarifying that the seven-year concession under the AICTE notification dated 18.02.2003 would expire in 2010, and that persons acquiring Ph.D. subsequently would be eligible for consideration from the date of such acquisition. The order does not in any manner hold that the consequence of non-acquisition of Ph.D. is automatic reversion or demotion. The proposition is one of eligibility for consideration from the date of acquiring the degree not reversion or loss of the post. The reliance placed upon Dr. Priyadarsini R.S. to justify reversion was therefore misplaced, and the same has been rendered further untenable by the subsequent authoritative ruling in Dr. Jiji K.S. (supra).

The Supreme Court in Dr. Jiji K.S. (supra) also referred to All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 6 SCC 605, and clarified that the phrase 'incumbent Assistant Professor' in the 2010 AICTE Notification includes only such Assistant Professors who had Ph.D. at the time of appointment, or who acquired it within seven years, or those appointed prior to 15.03.2000. Teachers appointed after 15.03.2000 who failed to acquire Ph.D. within seven years would not be entitled to the financial benefits of Clause (ix) of the 2010 Notification. Applying this to the present case, it is relevant to note that the appellant was promoted from the year 2003 by order dated 21.06.2005 and designated as Associate Professor by the same order and was not redesignated by any order dated 09.10.2006. Therefore, his promotion/designation cannot be revoked by the order dated 02.11.2016. However, in view of Dr. Jiji K.S. (supra), the appellant would not be entitled to the financial benefits under Clause (ix) of the 2010 AICTE Notification, having failed to acquire Ph.D. within the stipulated period. The consequence of non-acquisition is, at best, limitation of financial benefits not annulment of the promotion or reversion.

On the question of retrospectivity, the promotion was effected in 2006 under AICTE CAS norms then in force, the NIT Statutes came into force only on 05.06.2007, and the MHRD communications of 2009 and 2014 were posterior to the promotion. It is settled law that a subsequent administrative instrument cannot be applied retrospectively to withdraw vested rights in the absence of an express retrospective clause or clear statutory mandate. The impugned order revoking the promotion 'from the date of conferment i.e. 09-10-2006' is manifestly retrospective and lacks any express statutory or constitutional sanction for such retrospective withdrawal of vested rights. This renders the action doubly infirm.

On Article 14 ground- several other faculty members at MANIT who were similarly promoted and had not completed their Ph.D. within seven years were not subjected to reversion. The details of 12 such similarly situated faculty members have been placed on record. Furthermore, the MHRD communication dated 08.10.2014 was directed against twelve specific faculty members promoted vide Institute Order dated 20.08.2010, and the appellant's name does not appear in that list. The selective extension of MHRD's directions which were addressed in respect of a specific batch of promotees to the appellant, who was promoted in 2006 under a different instrument and a different scheme, without any cogent reason articulated in the impugned order, constitutes arbitrariness violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In case of All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 6 SCC 605 the Apex court held that 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). Notification 2010 AICTE given as under :-

For all the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 02.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) is liable to be set aside on the following independent grounds: (i) the stated basis for revocation that the appellant's promotion was made in reliance on a circular not applicable to NITs cannot sustain retrospective annulment of a promotion validly conferred in 2006 in the absence of an express retrospective statutory mandate; (ii) even if failure to obtain Ph.D. within seven years were to be treated as the applicable test, the consequence under the AICTE scheme as authoritatively declared in Christy James Jose (supra) and Dr. Jiji K.S. (supra) is stoppage of increments, and not reversion; (iii) the action is arbitrary and discriminatory in light of non-action against identically situated faculty members; and (iv) the pre-order withholding of salary from May 2016 is illegal and requires remedy.

The learned Single Judge's order dated 19.10.2023 as also the order on review dated 10.07.2025 accordingly cannot be sustained and are set aside.

In view of the foregoing, this Writ Appeal is ALLOWED. The impugned orders dated 19.10.2023 passed in W.P. No. 21349/2016 and dated 10.07.2025 passed in R.P. No. 1255/2023 are set aside. Consequently:

The order dated 02.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, revoking the appellant's promotion/redesignation as Associate Professor with effect from 09.10.2006, is quashed and set aside.

The respondents are directed to restore the appellant to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 09.10.2006.

The appellant shall not be entitled to the financial benefits under Clause (ix) of the 2010 AICTE Notification, having been appointed after 15.03.2000 and having failed to acquire the Ph.D. qualification within the stipulated period, in terms of the law laid down in All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 6 SCC 605.

The respondents may free to take appropriate action for stoppage of increment(s) for the period of non-possession of Ph.D. degree, in terms of Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala (Civil Appeal No. 4604 of 2016) and Dr. Jiji K.S. and Others v. Shibu K. and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 324.

No order as to costs.