In Brief
The appellants, seven serving heads of departments, were promoted to principal positions at Chhattisgarh polytechnic colleges without possessing a Ph.D. degree. A rival candidate challenged their appointments, claiming Ph.D. was mandatory under the 2010 AICTE Regulations. The Supreme Court held that the Regulations use "or" between two eligibility criteria, making Ph.D. optional, not mandatory. The Court rejected the reliance on a 2016 AICTE notification as retrospective clarification. Further, the Court held that vested rights acquired under the prior understanding of the rules could not be impaired by retrospective changes. The Court allowed the appeal and upheld the promotions.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.