Kerala High Court
Kanjana G vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
WA No.1406 of 2025 2025:KER:73731
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
WA NO. 1406 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.09.2024 IN WP(C) NO.7028 OF
2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 KANJANA G.
AGED 36 YEARS
ASST. PROFESSOR (ECE DEPARTMENT), L.B.S. INSTITUTE FOR
WOMEN POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM-695 012
2 SMITHA K.S.
ASST. PROFESSOR (ECE DEPARTMENT), -DO-, PIN - 695012
3 MOHAMMED SHAFFI J,
AGED 38 YEARS
ASST. PROFESSOR (ECE DEPARTMENT), -DO-., PIN - 695012
4 BAIJU P.S.
AGED 37 YEARS
ASST. PROFESSOR (ECE DEPARTMENT), -DO-, PIN - 695012
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SRI.S.MOHANDAS
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
SMT.SAILAKSHMI MENON
2
WA No.1406 of 2025 2025:KER:73731
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001
2 DIRECTOR
L..B.S. CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, NANDAVANAM,
TRIVANDRUM-695 033
3 PRINCIPAL
L.B.S. INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR WOMEN POOJAPPURA,
TRIVANDRUM-695 012
4 DIRECTOR
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, JANPATH,
NEW DELHI 110 011
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. SHAMEENA SALHUDHEEN, SC FOR LBS;
SRI. SAJITH KUMAR V., SC, AICTE
SMT.SAROJINI K.G, SR.G.P
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 10.09.2025, THE COURT
ON 8.10.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
WA No.1406 of 2025 2025:KER:73731
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.7028 of 2019 are before this
Court with this writ appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala
High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated
11.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition
filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 proceedings dated 22.01.2019
issued by the 2nd respondent Director, LBS Centre for Science and
Technology; to issue a writ of mandamus commanding
respondents 1 to 3 to continue payment of advance increment
already granted to the appellants with usual allowance thereof, so
long as Exts.P1 to P3 orders are in force; and to direct the
respondents 2 and 3 to refund the amount already recovered from
the appellants.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the
appellants were appointed as Lecturers in the Electronics and
Communication Department of LBS Institute for Women,
Poojappura, Trivandrum, on 16.01.2008 in the pre-revised pay
scale of Rs.8000-13500/-. Their pay was subsequently revised to
WA No.1406 of 2025 2025:KER:73731
Rs.15600-39100/-. The minimum eligibility for appointment to the
post of Lecturer at that time was B.Tech degree with first class.
The post of Lecturer was subsequently redesignated as Assistant
Professor. While in service, the appellants acquired M.Tech
degree. By virtue of Ext.P1 AICTE Regulations dated 22.01.2010,
which was implemented by the Government of Kerala by Ext.P2
order dated 07.12.2010, one advance increment for those
employees possessing M.Tech/M.Phil degree was granted.
Subsequently, by Ext.P3 clarification order dated 16.06.2017, it
was clarified by the Government that the advance increment for
M.Tech degree is limited to the employees working in the pay
band-3, i.e., pay scale of Rs.15600-39100. According to the
appellants, by misconstruing the orders in Exts.P1 to P3, the audit
wing of the Government raised Ext.P4 objection, presumably
taking redesignation of the post of Lecturers as Assistant
Professors as an upgradation of the post of Lecturer. Without
properly considering the correct position, the 2 nd respondent
issued Ext.P5 proceedings dated 22.01.2019 for refixation of pay
of the appellants by deleting the advance increment legally
granted to them, and for recovery of about Rs.1/- Lakh from each
WA No.1406 of 2025 2025:KER:73731
of the appellants. Pursuant to Ext.P5 proceedings, recovery of
Rs.14,000/- each from appellants 1 and 2 was effected from the
salary of February 2019 and Rs. 6000/- each from appellants 3
and 4. Therefore, the appellants filed W.P.(C)No.7028 of 2019
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the
necessary reliefs.
3. The learned Single Judge considered W.P.(C)No.7028
of 2019 along with some other writ petitions filed by persons
similarly placed as that of the appellants herein, and by the
common judgment dated 11.09.2024, the learned Single Judge
allowed those writ petitions, except that of the claim of the
appellants. Paragraphs 12 to 14 and the last paragraph of that
judgment read thus:
"12. The issue arises only subsequent to the 2010
Regulations. The respondents have placed reliance on the
notification dated 04.01.2016. A reference to the said
notification would show that two paragraphs that are made
applicable as against the petitioners, are paragraphs 5 and
6. As regards paragraph 5, the same would get attracted
only in a situation where the concerned persons were
working with 'lower qualification' when the qualification
required was a higher one. The said paragraph may not
apply as against the petitioners herein for the simple reason
WA No.1406 of 2025 2025:KER:73731
that as on the date of joining the service of the 2 nd
respondent itself, the petitioners claim that they were
having B.Tech/M.Tech. The second paragraph (Para 6) would
become applicable only in a situation where the incumbents
had acquired higher qualification 'while in service'. Here
also, as noticed earlier, the petitioners claim that as on the
date of joining the service of the 2 nd respondent, they were
having the higher qualification. Therefore, the notification
dated 04.01.2016, in my opinion, would not apply to the
facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
13. In this connection, a reference to the affidavit dated
30.07.2024 of the 5th respondent would be beneficial. In the
said affidavit also, which is extracted earlier, the AICTE has
specifically pointed out that the respondents were not
justified in relying on the notification dated 04.01.2016 as
well as 2010 Regulations, so as to deny the benefits of two
advance increments to the petitioners.
14. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the
impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioners
would not be justifiable. However, I notice that Smt.
Shameena has a specific contention to the effect that some
of the petitioners have acquired the higher qualification only
subsequent to 2010 Regulations. I make it clear that those
of the petitioners who have so attained higher qualifications
subsequent to 2010 Regulations, would not be entitled for
the benefit of this judgment.
In such circumstances, I allow these writ petitions as
under;
WA No.1406 of 2025 2025:KER:73731
(i) The impugned orders in these writ petitions would stand
quashed.
(ii) There would be a declaration to the effect that, as
regards those of the petitioners who had B.Tech as well as
M.Tech on the date of joining the service of the 2 nd
respondent, that is, prior to 2010 Regulations, would be
entitled for the two advance increments under the 2000
Regulations.
(iii) Those of the petitioners, who have acquired the higher
qualification of M.Tech only subsequent to 2010 Regulations,
would not be entitled for the benefits flowing out of this
judgment."
4. Since, by the common judgment, no relief was granted
to the appellants, they filed the instant writ appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants /writ
petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the
learned Standing Counsel for LBS.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit
that at the time of appointment of the appellants as Lecturers, the
basic qualification required for that post was B.Tech degree.
Though the nomenclature of the post of Lecturer was redesignated
as Assistant Professor, the appellants continued in pay band-3,
since while changing the nomenclature, the post was not
WA No.1406 of 2025 2025:KER:73731
upgraded. The appellants were not promoted to the post of
Associate Professor, which is in pay band-4. Subsequently, the
appellants acquired M.Tech qualification and were granted an
advance increment, as stipulated in Exts.P1 AICTE regulations
2010 and Ext.P2 Government Order. M.Tech was made the basic
qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor, by AICTE
Regulation 2010. However, 7-years period was granted to acquire
that qualification. Similarly placed persons as those of the
appellants were granted one increment by Annexure-B order
dated 17.11.2023 of the Directorate of Technical Education. In
such circumstances, denial of one increment for the higher
qualification of M.Tech acquired by the appellants is not justifiable,
and the learned Single Judge failed to consider these aspects in
its proper perspective.
7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the
LBS would submit that as per serial No.25 of Annexure A, AICTE
notification dated 04.01.2016, there shall be no advance
increments for acquiring M.Tech/M. Phil or Ph.D degree to those
who are already working as regular faculty with lower
qualification, and where such higher basic qualifications are /were
WA No.1406 of 2025 2025:KER:73731
essential for the post. By AICTE Regulation 2010, the basic
qualification for the post of Assistant Professor was made M.Tech.
The Government of Kerala implemented the Regulation with
retrospective effect from 01.01.2006. A period of seven years was
also allowed to acquire that qualification by the Lecturers who
entered service at the time when the basic qualification was
B.Tech. All the appellants acquired M.Tech qualification after the
implementation of the AICTE Regulations 2010 by the
Government. The learned Standing Counsel invited our attention
to the judgment of the Apex Court in SLP (C)No.4787 of 2025
dated 01.04.2025, wherein based on the AICTE notification dated
15.03.2000 it was held that a candidate could be appointed as
Assistant Professor after 15.03.2000, only if he/she had a Ph.D
degree with first class at bachelor's or master's level in their
appropriate branch of Engineering and two years of teaching
experience. Therefore, according to the learned Standing
Counsel, the appellants cannot claim the benefit of one non-
compounded advance increment for acquiring the master's degree
while in service, since the basic qualification for the post of
Assistant Professor was made M.Tech by the 2010 notification.
WA No.1406 of 2025 2025:KER:73731
8. The learned Senior Government Pleader also supported
the arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for LBS.
9. The appellants entered service as Lecturers in the
Electronics and Communication Department of the LBS Centre for
Science and Technology at the time when the basic qualification
for the post was B.Tech degree with first class. Subsequently, by
AICTE Regulations 2010, the nomenclature of the post of Lecturer
was made as Assistant Professor and the basic qualification was
enhanced as M.Tech. By Ext.P2 order dated 07.12.2010, the
Government of Kerala implemented the same with retrospective
effect from 01.01.2006. The appellants are claiming the benefit of
Ext.P1 AICTE Regulations pertaining to incentives for M.Tech/Ph.D
and other higher qualifications and also Ext.P2 Government order
dated 07.12.2010, which says that a Teacher who acquires M.Tech
degree in a relevant branch/discipline recognised by a statutory
university while in service, shall be entitled to one advance
increment. However, the said benefit was denied to the appellants
for the reason that after the AICTE Regulations 2010, which made
the basic qualification for Assistant Professor as M.Tech with
retrospective effect from 01.01.2006, these advance increments
WA No.1406 of 2025 2025:KER:73731
are not admissible to those persons who are holding a lesser
qualification and acquired the higher qualification essential for the
post.
10. To acquire the basic qualification prescribed in AICTE
Regulations 2010, a 7-year time period was granted to the existing
Lecturers. In paragraph 20 of the judgment of the Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No.4787 of 2025 by referring the judgment in Christy
James Jose and others v. State of Kerala and others [2016
SCC Online SC 1817] it was held that while interpreting Clause
53 of the 2016 clarification, the failure to acquire Ph.D within
seven years can result in stoppage of increments but cannot result
in termination of services. Therefore, it is clear that the
consequence of non-acquisition of basic qualification of M.Tech by
the appellants within the stipulated period of 7 years will have the
consequence of stoppage of payment of increment and not of
termination of service. The appellants acquired the higher
qualification of M.Tech prior to the introduction of the basic
qualification as M.Tech for the post held by them, and were
granted one advance increment from 2013, 2014 and 2015
respectively as mentioned in a table in paragraph 9 of the
WA No.1406 of 2025 2025:KER:73731
impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is true that the
appellants are admittedly working in pay band-3. They were not
upgraded to pay band-4. The qualification for the post held by the
appellants as on the date of their entering into service was B.Tech
with first class. But, the basic qualification for the post was
prescribed as M.Tech y 2010 AICTE Regulations, and the
appellants acquired the said basic qualification, only after the
implementation of AICTE Regulations by the Government.
Therefore, by referring to clause (ii) in Sl.No.25 of Annexure A
clarifications dated 04.01.2016, the benefit of one non
compounded advance increment granted to the appellants were
cancelled by the 2nd respondent. When the appellants are not
entitled for advance increment for higher qualification, since the
said qualification obtained by them is the basic qualification for
the post held by them in view of clarification in Annexure A
notification, the appellants cannot claim the benefit of advance
increment by relying on Annexure B order, which is only an
executive order issued by the Director of Technical Education.
Therefore, we find no illegality in the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge.
WA No.1406 of 2025 2025:KER:73731
11. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to
interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
The appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
WA No.1406 of 2025 2025:KER:73731
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A . A TRUE COPY OF AICTE NOTIFICATION DATED
04.01.2016 CALLED AS ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR
TECHNICAL EDUCATION (CLARIFICATIONS ON
CERTAIN ISSUES/ ANOMALIES PERTAINING TO
QUALIFICATIONS, PAY SCALES, SERVICE
CONDITIONS, CAREER ADVANCEMENT SCHEMES (CAS)
ETC. FOR TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF
OF TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS
(DEGREE/DIPLOMA)),2016
Annexure B . A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. CAS/41937/19/DTE
ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT AS ON 17.11.2023
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING NO. B7/2742/2019
BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.04.2025
