Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision :11.02.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 11 February, 2026
Author: H.S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S. Thangkhiew
2026:MLHC:58
Serial No. 01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 473 of 2025
Date of Decision :11.02.2026
Smti Teilynti Lyngdoh,
W/o (L) Alexander D. Massar,
R/o Mawprem, Shillong,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Meghalaya represented by
Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya,
Education Department, Shillong
2. The Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya,
Education Department, Shillong.
3. Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya,
Education Department, Shillong.
4. Under Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya,
Education Department, Shillong.
5. Director of Higher and Technical Education,
Meghalaya, Shillong
6. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya,
Education Department, Shillong.
7. The Director,
Polytechnic and Shillong Engineering,
Shillong.
8. Additional Director,
Polytechnic and Shillong Engineering,
Shillong
Page 1 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
9. Personnel & AR (Department), Shillong,
Meghalaya.
10. The Accountant General, (A&E),
Meghalaya, Shillong
.... Respondent(s)
11. Union of India represented by
The Secretary to the Education Department,
Govt. of India, New Delhi
12. All India Councial for Technical Education represented by
Secretary, New Delhi .... Proforma Respondent(s)
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Sen, Adv. with
Ms. E. Blah, Adv.
Ms. S. Dhar, Adv.
Ms. S. Shallam, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with
Mr. E.R. Chyne, GA (For R 1-6&9)
Ms. E.B. Passah, Adv. (For R 10
Mr. R. Debnath, CGC (For R 11)
Mr. S. Pandey, Adv. (For R 12)
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
Page 2 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner a holder of a
First Class Master of Science Degree in Physics, was appointed as a Lecturer
at the Shillong Polytechnic School in 09.01.1995. At the time of
appointment, her service conditions were governed by State Government
Rules but subsequently the pay scales and service conditions prescribed by
the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) for the faculty of
the Institute were adopted with notional effect from 01.01.1996, as notified
on 27.10.2009 and 26.11.2012. On this adoption, the petitioner began
drawing pay in accordance with the AICTE pay scale and during her tenure
in service was duly placed in the Senior Scale Lecturer position with
Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs. 7000/- under the Career Advancement
Scheme (CAS) w.e.f. 09.01.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner was given
further promotion under CAS to Lecturer (Selection Grade) in the pay band
of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- with AGP of Rs. 8000/- w.e.f. 09.01.2008.
2. The petitioner's grievance has arisen from the denial to her
claim for subsequent promotion to the Higher Grade of Lecturer (Selection
Grade) in Pay Band 4 i.e. Rs. 37,400-67,000/- with AGP of Rs. 9000/- which
normally would become due upon completion of 3(three) years' service in
AGP Rs. 8000/- grade. The denial of her promotion as contained in the
impugned notification dated 16.01.2024, was on the sole ground of her lack
Page 3 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
of a PhD which as per the respondents was mandatory by application of
AICTE Regulations of 2010. The petitioner then assailed this interpretation
as being erroneous and contrary to the express provisions of the relevant
AICTE Regulations and made representations to this effect, which were
however, rejected by the respondents while reaffirming their position vide a
communication dated 01.04.2024 and 18.06.2025. The petitioner is
therefore, before this Court by way of the instant writ application alleging
arbitrariness on the part of the respondents, and has prayed for appropriate
directions and reliefs.
3. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the respondents have fundamentally misconstrued the applicable AICTE
Regulations, inasmuch as, the mandatory requirement of possessing a PhD
for promotion to AGP Rs. 9000/- grade as introduced in the 2010 and 2012
Regulations is prospective in its application. It is submitted that the proviso
in the Regulations has made this requirement mandatory only to those who
joined service after 05.03.2010, thus the petitioner who joined service prior
to that date i.e. 1995 was protected. It is further submitted that the
respondents in their interpretation applied this new qualification criteria
based on her date of promotion, which fell due on 2011, while ignoring her
date of entry into service. The action of the respondents it is contended,
which amounts to an impermissible retrospective application, has vitiated
Page 4 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
the very protection afforded to incumbents under paragraph 5.0 of the
AICTE norms and the proviso of the Regulations 2010/2012. It is then
argued that the impugned notification dated 16.01.2024, is patently
discriminatory, inasmuch as, other faculty members including those from
core Technical Department such as Mechanical Engineering have been
granted promotion to AGP Rs. 9000/- grade despite not possessing the
higher qualifications of PhD/M. Tech for Technical streams, whereas the
petitioner a Science and Humanities Lecturer under an identical CAS has
been denied.
4. The learned counsel then submits that the distinction made by
the respondents between Technical and non-Technical faculty for the same
application of CAS is without basis, inasmuch as, the AICTE Regulations
governs the service conditions of all Teachers in Technical Institutions for
the purpose of Pay and Career progression. The denial he submits, based
solely on the lack of PhD, which is not a requirement in the petitioner's case
has resulted in grave discrimination being caused, inasmuch as, she
possesses all the required conditions for promotion including 3 years in AGP
Rs. 8000/- grade, maintenance of consistent and satisfactory service record
and successful completion of the AICTE approved Refresher courses and
training programmes as required under the Regulations. The petitioner it is
submitted is due to retire on 28.02.2026, and the wrongful denial of her due
Page 5 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
promotion w.e.f 09.01.2011, has resulted in a continuing financial loss
which will also have adverse consequences on her calculation of pension,
gratuity and other terminal benefits.
5. On the respondent's reliance on the clarification that has been
issued in 2016 to deny the petitioner for promotion, it has been submitted
that the AICTE Regulations clearly prescribed cutoff dates, such as
01.01.1996 in the notification of 1999 and 05.03.2010, in the notification of
2010-2012 under the CAS. The learned counsel has submitted that
Regulation 3.8 of the AICTE Regulation of 2012 as amended by its
corrigendum, has specifically provided that only those who joined service
after 05.03.2010, are required to possess a PhD to move Level-4 AGP Rs.
9000/- grade. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed
reliance in the case of Gelus Ram Sahu vs. Surendra Kumar Singh (2020)
4 SCC 484, wherein he submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
cautioned that a clarificatory notification ought not to be a surreptitious tool
of achieving the ends of amendment and that any rule which retrospectively
takes away or nullifies the benefit already granted or accrued, such as a
promotion, can be challenged as being violative or Articles of 14 and 16 of
the Constitution, to the extent of such retrospectivity.
6. In conclusion the learned counsel has submitted that the
petitioner having entered service in 1995, is expressly protected under
Page 6 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
Regulation 3.8 of the un-amended Regulation, and by applying the
requirement of a PhD based on the date when her promotion had become
due in 2011, while ignoring the date of entry into service is arbitrary and
impermissible. He therefore, prays that the petitioner on these clear grounds
be allowed the reliefs as claimed.
7. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Mr. E.R. Chyne,
learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 6 & 9 has submitted that
promotion under a CAS, is not a matter of vested right but a conditional
benefit strictly contingent upon the fulfilling of eligibility criteria prescribed
by the governing AICTE Regulations on the date the benefit accrues. The
learned AAG then submits that the petitioner's case, has to be examined in
the light of the corrigendum to the AICTE Regulations of 2012, particularly
clause 3.8, and has read out the said provision by contending that the term
'incumbent' used in the Heading to clause 3.8 is applicable to all the existing
faculty members including the petitioner and that it has prescribed a
condition that all incumbents moving to Level-4 AGP Rs. 9000/- grade
require a PhD, except for those who can claim the specific exception of
having joined service before 05.03.2010. It is argued that while the petitioner
is an incumbent, she became due for placement to Lecturer (Senior Grade)
in Level-4 AGP Rs. 9000/- on 09.01.2011, and as her due date for promotion
falls after 05.03.2010, as per the AICTE Regulation of 2010, her placement
Page 7 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
or promotion was not permissible. This position it is submitted, is reinforced
on the requirement being clarified by clarification of 2016.
8. Great emphasis on points 10 and 43 of the AICTE Clarification
Notification dated 04.01.2016, which has clarified stream-based
qualifications have been submitted by the learned AAG, to make a point that
the petitioner belongs to Humanities and Science faculty and as per the
clarification, PhD is an essential qualification. It is also submitted that the
petitioner's reliance on the earlier AICTE Notifications of 1999 etc. is of no
assistance as these older provisions have been superseded by the subsequent
and comprehensive Regulations of 2010 onwards and more particularly, the
2016 Clarifications. It is further submitted there is a valid classification
inherent in the AICTE regulatory framework itself, which explains that a
faculty member promoted without a PhD belong only to core Engineering
stream i.e. Civil, Mechanical etc., wherein the essential higher qualification
prescribed is an M. Tech and not a PhD and as such, the 2016 clarifications
regarding M. Phil/PhD is not applicable to them, whereas the petitioner
being from the Science (Physics) stream is governed by points 10 and 43 of
the AICTE Clarification Notification dated 04.01.2016
9. The learned AAG submits that apart of the lack of a PhD, the
petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement of completion of 2 AICTE
approved 2(two) weeks refresher programmes and two 1(one) week TEQIP
Page 8 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
programmes for any advancement, and on this ground also it is submitted
the petitioner has failed satisfactorily to prove compliance with this
condition. The action of the respondents it is submitted is not arbitrary or
discriminatory but has been strictly in accordance with the binding statutory
AICTE Regulations, and as such the relief claimed by the petitioner is
untenable and the writ petition is liable to be rejected.
10. Mr. S. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 12,
(AICTE) has endorsed the submissions made by the learned AAG and
further submits that with the clarification issued on 04.01.2016, the
petitioner was required to possess a PhD to be eligible to be placed at Level-
4 AGP Rs. 9000/- grade.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and on an
overview of the case of the petitioner, it appears that the entire issue revolves
around the interpretation of the applicable Regulations, whether a PhD was
a mandatory requirement to allow the advancement, or placement at AGP
Rs. 9000/- grade. In order to examine the matter in its correct perspective, it
would be expedient to reproduce the relevant clauses of:-
i) AICTE Notification - Revised Pay Scales and Service Conditions
(Diploma Level) dated 30.12.1999
ii) (AICTE (Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications)
Regulations, 2010 (Diploma) dated 05.03.2010
Page 9 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
iii) AICTE (Career Advancement Scheme for Teachers and Academic
Staff) Regulations, 2012 (Diploma) dated 08.11.2012
iv) Clarification on certain issues/anomalies pertaining to Qualifications,
Pay Scales, Service Conditions, Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)
etc. for Teachers and other Academic Staff of Technical Institutions
(Degree/Diploma)
v) Corrigendum in AICTE Regulations, 2012 (Diploma) in respect of
Para-3 and Table II (A)
AICTE Notification - Revised Pay Scales and Service Conditions (Diploma Level)
dated 30.12.1999
Condition Prescription (As Notified)
Condition 8 Career Advancement
8.1(a)(i) CAS provides movement from Lecturer to Lecturer (Senior
Scale).
8.1(a)(ii) CAS provides promotion from Lecturer (Senior Scale) to
Lecturer (Selection Grade).
8.1(b)(i) Promotion under CAS requires consistently satisfactory
performance appraisal reports.
8.1(b)(ii) Assessment and selection through Selection Committee as for
direct recruitment.
8.1(b)(iii) Teaching/contact hours remain the same after CAS promotion.
8.2 Lecturer (Senior Scale)
8.2(i) Eligibility for Senior Scale after 6 years of regular service.
8.2(i) Relaxation: 2 years for Ph.D and 1 year for
M.Phil/M.E/M.Tech.
8.2(ii) Orientation and refresher/industrial training of 8 weeks
prescribed.
8.2(ii) Ph.D holders exempted from training requirement.
8.3 (i) Lecturer (Selection Grade):
A Senior Lecturer / Lecturer (Senior Scale) who has a Master's
degree and 5 years' experience as senior Lecturer of Lecturer
(Senior Scale), and has consistently satisfactory performance
appraisal reports will be eligible to be placed as Lecturer
(Selection Grade), subject to the recommendation of the
Selection Committee.
Page 10 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
AICTE (Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications) Regulations, 2010
(Diploma) dated 05.03.2010
Regulation Prescription (As Notified)
1.1-1.3 Regulations applicable to all AICTE approved Diploma
institutions.
Regulation 1.3, Designations: Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, HOD, Workshop
General (i) Superintendent.
General (ii) Two Pay Bands of Rs 15600-39100 and Rs 37400-67000, with
Academic Grade Pay (AGP).
Revised Pay Scales, Service conditions and Career
Advancement Scheme for teachers and Equivalent positions:
The pay Structure for different categories of teachers and
equivalent positions shall be as indicated below:
(a) Lecturer in Polytechnics
(ix) Lecturer with 5 years at AGP Rs.7000 eligible for AGP
Rs.8000.
(x) Selection Grade with 3 years in pre-revised scale placed at
AGP Rs.9000.
(xi) Lecturers not completing 3 years to remain at AGP Rs.8000.
(xii) After 3 years at AGP Rs.8000 eligible for AGP Rs.9000.
(xiii) HOD placed in PB Rs.37400-67000 with AGP Rs.9000.
(xiv) HOD with Ph.D after 3 years eligible for AGP Rs.10000.
(xvi) Advancement subject to refresher and TEQIP programs.
Faculty Norms Minimum Qualifications and Experience for appoinment of
teaching Posts in Diploma Level Technical Institutions
Humanities and First Class Masters degree in appropriate subject with first
Science class or equivalent at Bachelor's or Master's level
AICTE (Career Advancement Scheme for Teachers and Academic Staff)
Regulations, 2012 (Diploma) dated 08.11.2012
Regulation Prescription (As Notified)
1.3 Promotions on or after 05.03.2010 governed by 2012
Regulations.
Regulation 3.8 Lecturer completing 3 years at AGP Rs.7000 eligible for
Selection Grade (AGP Rs.8000). Ph.D mandatory for those
appointed after 05.03.2010.
3.9 Lecturer (Senior Scale) with 3 years and Ph.D eligible for
AGP Rs.9000.
3.9(a) Minimum API-PBAS, (Academic Performance Indicator)
(Performance-Based Appraisal System) score mandatory.
3.9(b) Selection Committee assessment mandatory.
Page 11 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
AICTE CLARIFICATION NOTIFICATION
Date: 4th January 2016
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)
The Clarifications on certain issues of teachers and equivalent positions are given
below:
Issues Clarification
10 Clarity required in faculty norms The qualifications laid down under
notified vide AICTE Regulations,
faculty norms in AICTE
2010 (Diploma) for Humanities &
Sciences program. Regulations, 2010 for the post of
Lecturer be read as under:
"Master's degree in appropriate
subject of Humanities & Sciences
with first class or equivalent at
Bachelor's or Master's Level".
Further, for their upward
movement as a Lecturer (Selection
Grade) under Career
Advancement Scheme (CAS),
Ph.D in relevant subject is an
essential qualification.
35 Whether CAS guidelines issued in AICTE Regulations, 2012 have
2012 (Degree/Diploma) are in been issued in continuation of
continuation of AICTE AICTE Regulations, 2010. All
Regulations, 2010 and its conditions laid down shall be
applicability to the existing applicable to existing incumbent as
incumbents well as for newly recruited teachers
(as defined in AICTE Regulations,
2012), unless otherwise specified
separately. This Regulation is
applicable as per the proviso of
Rule 1.3 of AICTE Regulations,
2012.
Page 12 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
43 Applicability of Master's degree as The qualification prescribed in Para
laid down in AICTE notification 8.3 of AICTE notification 1999
1999, Para 8.3 Lecturer (Selection (Diploma) does not apply to the
Grade) to Humanities & Sciences Humanities & Sciences for upward
for up - gradation to Lecturer movement of Lecturer (Senior
(Selection Grade). Scale) to Lecturer (Selection Grade)
under CAS. M. Phil/Ph. D is
essential qualification for upward
movement to Lecturer (Selection
Grade) in Humanities & Sciences.
[Para 8.3 of AICTE
notification1999: Lecturer
(Selection Grade):
A Senior Lecturer / Lecturer (Senior
Scale) who has a Master's degree
and 5 years experience as senior
Lecturer of Lecturer (Senior Scale),
and has consistently satisfactory
performance appraisal reports will
be eligible to be placed as Lecturer
(Selection Grade), subject to the
recommendation of the Selection
Committee]
CORRIGENDUM IN AICTE REGULATIONS, 2012 (DIPLOMA) IN RESPECT
OF PARA-3 AND TABLE II (A), (See page 122 of the Writ Petition, and page 32
of the AICTE Clarifications dated 4th January 2016
3 Stage of Promotion Under Career
Advancement Scheme of Incumbent and
Newly Appointed Lecturer: Para- 3 of
AICTE Regulations, 2012 (Diploma)
3.4 Incumbent and newly recruited Lecturer
possessing M. Phil Degree or a Post-
Graduate Degree in professional courses
approved by the relevant statutory body
shall be placed in the Pay Band of Rs.
15600-39100 with AGP of Rs. 6000 (stage
1) and eligible for moving to the next
higher grade of Rs.7000 (stage 2) as
Lecturer (Senior Scale) after completion
of five years service as Lecturer.
Page 13 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
3.8 Lecturer (Selection Grade) completing
three years of teaching in the grade of
Rs.8000 (stage 3) shall be eligible subject
to the qualifying conditions and the API
based PBAS requirements prescribed by
these Regulations, to move to the Pay
Band of Rs.37400-67000 with next higher
grade of Rs.9000 (stage 4) and to be re-
designated as Lecturer (Selection Grade).
However, those joining the Service after
5th March 2010 shall have also earned
Ph. D in addition to above mentioned
requirements to move to the stage 4
subject to
following.
(a) Satisfying the required credit points as
per API based PBAS requirements as
provided in Tables of Appendix 1 and
(b) An assessment by a duly constituted
Selection Committee as suggested for the
direct recruitment of Head of Department.
12. A perusal of the above quoted provisions in the considered view
of this Court for promotion under the CAS, would be governed by the date
of entry into service and that the PhD requirement is purely prospective. This
observation is made in view of the fact that on a plain reading of the AICTE
Clarificatory Notification of 2016, Point No. 10, would only clarify the entry
level qualification for Lecturers for Humanities and Sciences, as the 2010
Regulations, lack clarity on this aspect that PhD, as an essential
qualification, would refer only to the cases of new entrants. Similarly, the
clarification at Point No 43, on which heavy reliance has been placed by the
State respondents, would be of no assistance as this also is only a distinction
Page 14 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
made as to the eligibility prescribed by the 1999 notification, and thus refers
to new entrants and cannot change the substantive position contained in
Clause. 3.8 of AICTE CAS Regulation of 2012. Further, at Regulation 1.3
of the Regulations dated 08.11.2012, it has been provided that promotions
on or after 05.03.2010, would be governed by the said Regulations, and vide
a corrigendum to the AICTE Regulations of 2016, has clearly made the
distinction of the requirement of a PhD, applicable to only those who joined
service after 05.03.2010. In the instant case, the petitioner had entered
service on 09.01.1995, and therefore, would not fall within the category
requiring this additional qualification. The ground taken by the State
respondents that the date due for promotion would be the date to be taken
for consideration, and that the petitioner being due for promotion in 2011,
would fall beyond the cutoff date of 05.03.2010, is also unsustainable in
view of the clear condition give in clause 3.8 of the 2012 Regulations, that
only a Lecturer entering service after the cutoff date i.e. 05.03.2010, would
require a PhD. The distinction sought to be made between Lecturers from
Humanities and Sciences and those from technical subjects also does not
hold any water as they are placed in the same pay scale with same
opportunity for Career Progression.
13. A harmonious reading of a Lecturer's movement from Level-3
to Level-4 would show that the requirement of a PhD, operates only as an
Page 15 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
additional condition for those who entered service after 05.03.2010. As such,
it would follow that for incumbents such as the petitioner who had been
appointed prior to the said date, their eligibility to advance to Level-4, would
be governed by the completion of 3 years in Level-3 AGP Rs. 8000/- grade,
fulfillment of API-PBAS credit requirement and assessment by a duly
constituted Selection Committee.
14. In the light of the discussions made hereinabove, it would be
useful to refer to the judgment cited by the petitioner i.e. Gelus Ram Sahu
vs. Surendra Kumar Singh (supra) with regard to the import and purport of
the clarificatory notification of 2016, which is not an amendatory
notification and other related issues such as whether retrospective changes
in eligibility requirements, can affect existing appointments, the relevant
paragraphs being Paras 25 to 30, are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"25. The present case is one where except for the title, nothing
contained therein indicates that the 2016 AICTE Notification
was clarificatory in nature. The said Notification is framed in
a question-answer style and merely restates what has already
been made explicit in the 2010 AICTE Regulations. There
seems to be no intent to alter the position of law but instead
only to simplify what the AICTE had resolved through its
original regulation. The 2016 AICTE Notification is a
response to the doubts put forth to AICTE by the public. This
is evident from the stand put forth by AICTE before us in its
reply as well as during the course of hearing, namely, that
there is no retrospective alteration in the qualification
prescribed for the post of Principal.
26. Even if the 2016 AICTE Notification was clarificatory, it
must be demonstrated that there was an ambiguity in the
criteria for appointment to the posts of Principal, which
Page 16 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
needed to be remedied. Clarificatory notifications are distinct
from amendatory notifications, and the former ought not to
be a surreptitious tool of achieving the ends of the latter. If
there exists no ambiguity, there arises no question of making
use of a clarificatory notification. 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.
27. As discussed earlier, there were no two interpretations
possible, and hence Issues 48 and 64 of the
2016 AICTE Notification have, in no uncertain terms, reprised
the substance of the 2010 AICTE Regulations.
(iii) Whether retrospective changes in qualificatory
requirements can affect the existing appointments?
28. Having held that the 2016 AICTE Notification is only
complementary to what the AICTE had laid down in 2010, we
may hasten to add that even in a situation where eligibility
conditions are clarified from an anterior date, it may not be
prudent to affect the appointments which had been made on
the basis of a possible understanding of the eligibility
conditions.
29. This Court in a range of decisions including T.R.
Kapur v. State of Haryana [T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana,
1986 Supp SCC 584] , K. Ravindranath Pai v. State of
Karnataka [ 1995 Supp (2) SCC 246 : and K.
Narayanan v. State of Karnataka [1994 Supp (1) SCC 44],
has opined that vested rights cannot be impaired by enacting
law with retrospective effect and that such statutory rules
ought not to result in any discrimination or violation of
constitutional rights.
30. The law on vested rights in service matters has
exhaustively been elaborated in Railway Board v. C.R.
Rangadhamaiah [ (1997) 6 SCC 623] wherein it has been
stated : (SCC pp. 637-38, paras 20 & 24)
"20. It can, therefore, be said that a rule which operates in
futuro so as to govern future rights of those already in service
cannot be assailed on the ground of retroactivity as being
Page 17 of 21
2026:MLHC:58
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but a rule
which seeks to reverse from an anterior date a benefit which
has been granted or availed of, e.g., promotion or pay scale,
can be assailed as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively.
***
24. In many of these decisions the expressions "vested rights"
or "accrued rights" have been used while striking down the impugned provisions which had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, etc., of the employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that time. It has been held that such an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."
15. Though by way of affidavit the State respondents have also raised other questions of eligibility of the petitioner as to the non fulfilment of the requirement of completion of 2 AICTE approved 2(two) weeks refresher programmes and two 1(one) week TEQIP programmes, a perusal of the impugned notification would show that the rejection of the petitioner's case for AGP Rs, 9000, was only for not having a PhD. However, notwithstanding this, the learned counsel for the petitioner, to demonstrate as to how this requirement has been met, has referred to the table appended to paragraph 12 of the writ petition, as also the certificates annexed as Annexures 12 to 18. A perusal of these materials without dwelling on the Page 18 of 21 2026:MLHC:58 fine details, would show that the petitioner has completed a total of 4 one- week programmes and 2 (two) two-week programmes, which is as per the requirement of the AICTE guidelines and the concerned Academic institution. The table which is relevant is reproduced hereinbelow :
Sl. Date of issuance Institution & Courses Duration and Weeks of No. of Certificate attended attending the Course
1. 19.10.2001 Design and Development 01.10.2001-19.10.2001 of Instructional System at 2nd and 3rd week of Technical Teachers October, 2001 starting Training Institute, from Monday-Friday Eastern Region under MHRD, Government of India
2. 31.08.2002 Short Term Course on 01.07.2002-31.08.2002 Computer Fundamentals 1st week of July, 2002 to and MS-DOS MS- 5th week of August, Window, MS Word, MS 2002 starting from Excel, MS Power Point, Monday - Saturday and Internet and E-Mail at St. Edmund's College, Shillong.
3. 24.01.2003 Workshop on Teaching 20.01.2003-24.01.2002 Science at Technical 4th week of January, Teachers Training 2003 staring from Institute, Eastern Region Monday-Friday under MHRD, Government of India
4. 09.01.2004 Short Term Course on 05.01.2004-09.01.2004 Development of Item 2nd week of January, Bank/Question Bank for 2004 starting from Shillong Polytechnic/ Monday-Friday Meghalaya at Technical Training Institute under MHRD, Government of India Page 19 of 21 2026:MLHC:58
5. 30.08.2013 Short Term/In-House 26.08.2013-30.08.2013 Training Programme on 5th week of August, Innovative Approaches in 2013 starting from Curriculum Design at Monday - Friday National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research, Kolkata under MHRD, Government of Meghalaya
6. 09.01.2015 AICTE Recognised Short 05.01.2015-09.01.2015 Term Course on 2nd week of January, Institutional Preparation 2015 starting from for Accreditation at Monday-Friday National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research, Bhopal under MHRD Government of India 7 UGC-Sponsored Special 26.10.2015-15.11.2015 Winter School at North 5th week of October, Eastern Hill, Shillong 2015 to 3rd week of November, 2015 starting from Monday -
Sunday.
16. Reference to paragraph 1.3 (xvi) of the Regulations of 2010 provides for all advancement to higher grade pays in various cadres be effected subject to completion of 2 AICTE approved refresher programmes not less than 2 weeks duration each and 2(two) one week each TEQIP sponsored programmes. As such, as set down by the Table above and also in view of the fact that it has been clarified by the AICTE that 2 programmes of each of one week duration shall be considered as 1(one) programme of Page 20 of 21 2026:MLHC:58 two weeks duration for CAS, the writ petitioner as is also evident from the certificates attached, has met this requirement.
17. As such, in the considered view of this Court and in the facts, and circumstances and discussions made hereinabove, no valid ground exists to deny the promotion of the petitioner to Level-4 (Pay Band Rs. 37,400- 67,000/- with AGP of Rs. 9000/- grade).
18. The writ petition is allowed and accordingly the part of the impugned Notification dated 16.01.2024, as far as it relates to the petitioner is set and aside and quashed.
19. The writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Meghalaya 11.02.2026 "V. Lyndem- PS"
Signature Not Verified Page 21 of 21 Digitally signed by VALENTINO LYNDEM Date: 2026.02.11 14:18:58 IST