Authority: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru

Order Date: 1 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Rajeev Educational Trust and Rajeev Institute of Technology (a private engineering college affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University); Respondent – M.V. Ramesha, former Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering.
  • Appointment Details: Ramesha was appointed on 7 February 2011 as Lecturer (joining 10 February 2011) with a B.E. (First Class) in Civil Engineering, which was the qualifying requirement at that time.
  • Regulatory Background: AICTE, under Section 10(1)(i) of the AICTE Act, issued revised qualifications via Gazette Notification dated 5 March 2010, requiring a postgraduate degree (M.E./M.Tech) for teaching undergraduate engineering courses. VTU communications dated 7 January 2015 and 3 February 2015 directed compliance with these AICTE norms.
  • Notices Issued: A general notice dated 6 February 2015 was sent to all faculty lacking a postgraduate degree, requiring them to obtain one. A specific notice dated 18 February 2015 was addressed to Ramesha demanding compliance. He neither responded nor enrolled for a postgraduate programme.
  • Relieving Order: On 7 May 2015 the Principal issued an order relieving Ramesha from service on the ground of lacking the prescribed qualification.
  • Tribunal Proceedings: Ramesha filed M.A. (EAT) No. 02/2015 before the Education Appellate Tribunal (EAT), Hassan, under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The Tribunal, relying on Section 92(1) which mandates an enquiry before dismissal, held that no enquiry had been conducted and set aside the relieving order on 20 March 2021, directing reinstatement with back wages while preserving the institute’s right to act on qualification and attendance matters.
  • Single Judge Decision: The institute challenged the Tribunal’s order in W.P. No. 14128/2021. The learned Single Judge, on 9 April 2026, affirmed the Tribunal’s reasoning, observing that the absence of an enquiry rendered the relieving order illegal and that the Principal lacked competence to issue it.
  • Intra‑Court Appeal: The appellants filed Writ Appeal No. 1619/2026 (S‑Res) under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The appeal was heard by Justices D K Singh and H. Shanti Bhushan, reserved for judgment on 17 September 2026, and pronounced on 1 October 2026.
  • Legal Reasoning: The Court examined AICTE’s statutory power to prescribe faculty qualifications (AICTE Act, Section 10(1)(i)), Supreme Court precedents (e.g., JIJI K.S. vs L.B.S. Center for Science and Technology (2024), Christy James Jose vs State of Kerala (2016), Parshvanath Charitable Trust vs AICTE (2013), Secretary AISSMS vs State of Maharashtra (2025)), and the distinction between disciplinary dismissal and lack of eligibility. It concluded that the requirement of a postgraduate qualification is a substantive eligibility condition that cannot be overridden by procedural safeguards under Section 92(1).

Final Outcome

  • The Court set aside both the Tribunal’s reinstatement order and the Single Judge’s affirmation.
  • It held that the respondent’s lack of the prescribed postgraduate qualification precludes continuation in the post, irrespective of the absence of a disciplinary enquiry.
  • The institute was directed to pay the respondent a sum of Rs 12 lakhs as compensation within four weeks from the date of the order.
  • All interim applications, if any, were disposed of; pending IAs do not survive for consideration.

Topics: Education Regulation, Employment Law, AICTE Qualification Standards