The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has upheld the validity of the All India Council for Technical Training’s (AICTE) prescription of a PhD diploma as an eligibility situation for granting a better Tutorial Grade Pay (AGP) of ₹10,000 to lecturers in authorities polytechnic establishments.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan noticed,
“The differentiation between Lecturers possessing a Ph.D. qualification and people who don’t can’t be stated to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Structure of India. The prescription of upper tutorial {qualifications} for development in pay and profession development is a matter falling squarely inside the area of the statutory skilled physique, particularly AICTE, and doesn’t warrant interference in train of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Courtroom.”
The Courtroom thus dismissed a batch of petitions filed by lecturers working underneath Delhi authorities, who have been aggrieved that their juniors with PhDs have been granted the upper AGP of ₹10,000, whereas they (not possessing PhD {qualifications}) continued at AGP ₹9,000.
The Courtroom famous that whereas Ph.D. was not a vital or necessary qualification for appointment as Lecturers in technical establishments, AICTE later launched a distinction between Lecturers (Choice Grade/Grade-IV) with Ph.D. and people with out, for the aim of grant of Tutorial Grade Pay.
It held that AICTE, as a statutory skilled physique, is empowered to prescribe {qualifications}, service situations and pay scales for lecturers in technical establishments.
“The measure can be meant as an incentive to encourage lecturers to pursue increased {qualifications}. The legislation itself acknowledges distinct classes of lecturers, these with Ph.D. {qualifications} and people with out, and permits totally different entitlements accordingly,” it famous.
Reliance was positioned on All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society vs. State of Maharashtra (2025) the place the Supreme Courtroom upheld an analogous distinction within the context of Assistant Professors, validating the skilled physique’s discretion to prescribe tutorial {qualifications} for development in pay and profession development.
Discovering no infirmity within the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had earlier rejected the lecturers’ claims, the Excessive Courtroom dismissed the pleas.
Look: Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh & Ms. Punam Singh, Advs. for Petitioners; Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel-GNCTD (Companies), Mr. Uday Singh Ahlawat, Mrs. Tania Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs. for R-1/GNCTD (M: 9313964463) Mr. B.S. Rawat, CI/DTTE for R-2 (M: 9868747374) Ms. Pearl Sharma, Adv. for R3/AICTE
Case title: Sunil Kumar Tiwari And Ors. v. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9163/2018
