GELUS RAM SAHU AND OTHERS versus DR. SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 794 · Decided: 18-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
794
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
GELUS RAM SAHU AND OTHERS
v.
DR. SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 1667 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 18, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Service Law:
Appointment – Post of Principal – On facts, respondent no. 1
applied for the post of principal along with appellant nos. 1 to 7 –
However, only appellants declared successful – Writ petition by
respondent no. 1 seeking declaration that Ph.D. is an essential
qualification for post of principal at the Polytechnic colleges; sought
quashing of the promotion order since none of the appellants
possessed Ph.D. qualifications as also quashing of 2014 Rules –
Allowed by the High Court – On appeal, held: As regards the Ph.D.
qualifications, there is no inclination to read down the rules to omit
the ‘in Engineering’ part and only selectively insist upon a ‘Ph.D’ –
Hence, the only permissible way to read the AICTE criteria would
be to lay emphasis on the phrase “or” and thus, interpret ‘Ph.D in
Engineering’ as being discretionary upon the adopting institution/
State Government to specify either of the two criteria – Conclusion
by the High Court that as 2016 AICTE Notification was clarificatory,
it was applicable restrospectively which would remove any ambiguity
created by the AICTE Regulations is erroneous – Except for the
title, nothing contained therein indicates that the 2016 AICTE
Notification was clarificatory in nature – 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 – There is no retrospective
alteration in the qualification prescribed for the post of Principal –
Appellants do not possess Ph.D., however, they satisfied the
requirement of having fifteen years’ experience (of which at least
three years was as HOD) under the 2014 Chhattisgarh Rules and
were found suitable for promotion – They were also in possession
of one of the eligibility criteria prescribed under the 2010 AICTE
Regulations – Thus, the appellants’ appointments ought to remain
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 794
794
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
795
undisturbed – Judgment of the High Court is set aside – Pay Scales,
Service conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other
Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Diploma) Regulations, 2010
– ‘Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching cadre Polytechnic)
(Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2014.
Appointment – Illegal appointment from inception – Effect of
– Held: An appointment which is erroneous or illegal from the very
inception does not clothe the appointee with any indefeasible right
and such appointment is always subject to correctional decisions –
Appointment of a candidate who has erroneously secured public
employment without fulfillment of minimum qualifications can always
be annulled upon discovery of mistake.
Legislation: Clarificatory’ legislations – Connotation of –
Held: 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’ – If there exists no ambiguity, there arises no question
of making use of a clarificatory notification.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Is Ph.D mandatory for appointment to the post of
‘Principal’ under the 2010 AICTE Regulations?
1.1 Prerequisite criteria for appointment to the post of
Principal in a Polytechnic College has been provided under the
2010 AICTE. [Para 13][840-E-F]
1.2 A perusal of the qualification table makes it obvious
that there can be multiple HODs for different departments (like
Engineering, Architecture, Hotel Management, Pharmacy etc).
In order to be HOD of any such Department, a prospective
candidate needs to have both Master’s and Bachelor’s degrees
in the relevant field. Whereas candidates with a Ph.D must have
had 5 years of experience in the allied field, others without it
must have worked for 10 years. Phrased differently, Ph.D is not
mandatory for HOD, and instead results in a 5-year relaxation in
GELUS RAM SAHU AND OTHERS v. DR. SURENDRA
KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
796
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
requisi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.