LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

THE SECRETARY, ALL INDIA SHRI SHIVAJI MEMORIAL SOCIETY (AISSMS) AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 31-03-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHANSHU DHULIA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 342 : 2025 INSC 422
The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society 
(AISSMS) and Ors. 
v. 
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4564-4567 of 2025)
01 April 2025
[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the respondents who have admittedly completed three 
years of service in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 (on 
01.01.2006) are now entitled for pay band of Rs.37400- 67000 and 
AGP of Rs.9000; also, whether they are liable to be re-designated 
as Associate Professors.
Headnotes†
Service Law – Movement to a higher pay scale – When not 
entitled to – All India Council for Technical Education Act, 
1987 – Vide notification dated 15.03.2000, Ph.D. was made a 
mandatory qualification for Lecturers/Assistant Professors 
for the first time – Respondents appointed after 15.03.2000, 
who were non-Ph.D. and had also failed to acquire the same 
within seven years of appointment as was required under 
a subsequent notification of 2005, if entitled to the benefits 
of 2010 notification prescribing the pay structure and 
redesignation of Assistant Professors:
Held: No – Respondents appointed after 15.03.2000, who were  
non-Ph.D. and had also failed to acquire the same within seven 
years of appointment as was required, cannot be given the benefit 
of 2010 notification inasmuch as they cannot be given a higher 
pay scale or re-designated as an Associate Professor – ‘incumbent 
Assistant Professor’ in the 2010 notification only includes such 
Assistant Professors working on the post who had a Ph.D. 
qualification at the time of their appointment or who though did 
not have a Ph.D. qualification at the time of their appointment 
but subsequently in terms of the notification dated 15.03.2000 
r/w subsequent notification dated 28.11.2005 acquired Ph.D. 
within seven years of their appointment or those appointed prior 
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 
343
The Secretary, All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society (AISSMS)  
and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
to 15.03.2000; when Ph.D. was not an essential qualification, 
continued uninterruptedly. [Para 27]
Judicial review – Of decisions of expert bodies in academic 
matters like qualification for admission of students; 
qualifications required by teachers for appointment; salary; 
promotion, entitlement to a higher pay scale etc. – Qualification 
for teachers in Engineering Institutes prescribed by All India 
Council for Technical Education (AICTE) – Ph.D. made an 
essential qualification:
Held: AICTE which is an expert body mandated by law to prescribe 
essential qualifications for a teaching post, and hence, this Court 
cannot question the logic and wisdom of this expert body which 
prescribes the essential qualifications for these posts – The 
responsibility of fixing qualifications for purposes of appointment, 
promotion etc. of staff or qualifications for admissions, is that 
of expert bodies (AICTE in the present case), and so long as 
qualifications prescribed are not shown to be arbitrary or perverse, 
the Courts will not interfere – The qualification of Ph.D. has not 
been challenged in this case on the ground that it should not have 
been made an essential qualification – Further, in the present 
case, the law not only prescribes qualifications but also gives 
the consequences of not having these qualifications – There is 
nothing arbitrary in such prescriptions – Thus, courts must be slow 
in interfering with the opinion of experts in regard to academic 
standards – Powers of judicial review should only be exercised 
in cases where prescribed qualification or condition is against the 
law, arbitrary or involves interpretation of any principle of law – All 
India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. [Paras 24, 25]
Case Law Cited
Christy James Jose and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2016 
SCC OnLine SC 1817; Gelus Ram Sahu v. Surendra Kumar Singh 
[2020] 4 SCR 764 : (2023) 4 SCC 484 – distinguished.
All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan 
& Ors. [2009] 3 SCR 859 : (2009) 11 SCC 726; Medical Council 
of India v. Sarang & Ors. [2001] Supp. 2 SCR 275 : (2001) 8 
SCC 427 – relied on.
Sanjay Shrirangrao Surwase and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 
Ors. [W.P. No. 6001 of 2013] – referred to.
344
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987.
List of Keywords
Lecturers/Assistant Professors; Associate 

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