- Case
- THE SECRETARY ALL INDIA SHRI SHIVAJI MEMORIAL SOCIETY (AISSMS) v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Supreme Court of India, 01-04-2025)
- Law
- All India Council for Technical Education Act, Service Law, Interpretation of Statutes.
All India Council for Technical Education Act of 1987: The judgment discusses the All India Council for Technical Education Act of 1987 (referred to as ‘1987 Act’). Section 3 of the Act is mentioned, stating that the formation of the AICTE as a Statutory Body can be traced under this section. Section 10 of the Act, which outlines the powers and functions of the AICTE, is quoted: “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;”. Section 23 of the Act, concerning the power to make regulations, is also quoted: “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.” The judgment also discusses the AICTE's role in prescribing qualifications for teachers and the statutory nature of its powers.
Interpretation of Statutes: The judgment discusses the interpretation of "clarificatory" notifications, referencing the case of *Gelus Ram Sahu v. Surendra Kumar Singh (2020) 4 SCC 484*. It states that "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”....." The judgment emphasizes that a clarificatory notification cannot be a surreptitious tool for achieving the ends of an amending notification.
Service Law / Pay Scales: The core dispute revolves around the entitlement of teachers to revised pay scales under the 6th Central Pay Commission. The judgment analyzes the AICTE notifications of 2000, 2005, and 2010 concerning qualifications for Assistant Professors and the impact of not possessing a Ph.D. The judgment interprets Clause (ix) of the 2010 notification regarding "incumbent Assistant Professors and incumbent Lecturers," clarifying who is covered by this provision. It also addresses the issue of increments and higher pay scales for teachers who did not acquire a Ph.D. within the stipulated time.
