Bombay High Court Dismisses Review Petition by Unaided Minority Institution: “AICTE Pay Scale Regulations Are Binding; Financial Hardship No Justification for Denying Assistant Professors’ Salaries Under VI and VII Pay Commissions”

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court dismissed a review petition filed by an unaided minority educational institution challenging a ruling that directed it to pay Assistant Professors salaries as per the VI and VII Pay Commissions. The court held that:

1. Unaided minority institutions are bound by AICTE regulations when they seek recognition and affiliation from regulatory bodies.
2. No “error apparent on the face of the record” was found to justify a review.
3. Review jurisdiction cannot be used as an appeal to reargue the case.
4. Financial burden does not exempt compliance with statutory pay obligations.
5. Delaying tactics by institutions seeking to avoid salary payments will not be entertained.

To give the institution time to challenge the decision, the court postponed its effect by six weeks.

Facts of the Case

• The petitioner, an unaided minority educational institution, operates a college of engineering.
• Several Assistant Professors employed by the college had approached the High Court, claiming they were entitled to revised pay scales under the VI and VII Pay Commissions as per AICTE regulations and State Government resolutions.
• The High Court ruled in their favor, stating that the institution was bound to comply with these salary structures.
• The management challenged the ruling in a review petition, arguing that the decision contained errors apparent on the face of the record and that AICTE regulations did not apply to unaided minority institutions.

Issues Before the Court

1. Does the judgment contain an “error apparent on the face of the record” that justifies a review?
2. Are unaided minority institutions bound by AICTE regulations concerning pay scales?
3. Are Government Resolutions mandating AICTE pay scales issued under statutory authority or merely executive instructions?
4. Can the institution claim financial hardship to avoid paying salaries as per the Pay Commissions?
5. Can unaided minority institutions refuse to comply with conditions of recognition and affiliation?

Petitioner’s (Institution’s) Arguments

1. Limited Applicability of Government Resolutions
   • The management argued that the Government Resolutions (GRs) dated 20.08.2010 and 11.09.2019 were policy decisions applicable only to government and non-government aided institutions.
   • Since they are an unaided minority institution, they contended that they were not legally bound by these resolutions.
2. AICTE’s Recommendatory Role
   • The institution asserted that AICTE regulations are not binding and that AICTE lacks the authority to determine salary structures, which is the exclusive domain of the University Grants Commission (UGC).
   • They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Association of Management of Private Colleges v. AICTE (2013) to argue that AICTE’s role is recommendatory, not regulatory.
3. Right to Autonomy Under Article 30(1)
   • The institution claimed protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which grants minority institutions the right to manage their own affairs without interference from the government.
   • They contended that mandating salary structures infringes on this right.
4. Review Jurisdiction
   • The petitioners argued that the court had not properly considered several legal precedents and facts while delivering its judgment, justifying a review of the ruling.
5. Financial Constraints as a Justification
   • The institution claimed that it had not collected tuition fees based on the revised salary scales and, therefore, could not be expected to pay the increased salaries.
   • It requested permission to adjust the fee structure in the future to accommodate the increased salary burden.

Respondent’s (Assistant Professors’) Arguments

1. AICTE Regulations Are Binding
   • The respondents argued that AICTE pay scale regulations apply to all technical institutions, including unaided minority institutions.
   • They cited the Supreme Court ruling in Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission v. Bhartiya Kamgar Sangha (2017), which held that government resolutions issued under statutory power apply equally to unaided institutions.
2. Recognition and Affiliation Create Legal Obligations
   • They contended that the institution voluntarily sought recognition and affiliation from the university and AICTE, and these bodies imposed conditions that include AICTE pay scale compliance.
   • Institutions cannot cherry-pick benefits of affiliation while rejecting obligations.
3. No Grounds for Review
   • The Assistant Professors argued that the petition did not meet the threshold for review jurisdiction, as there were no errors apparent on the face of the record.
   • A review petition cannot be used as an appeal in disguise to reargue the case.
4. Financial Constraints Do Not Exempt Compliance
   • They asserted that financial hardship is not a legal defense against salary obligations.
   • Institutions must factor in statutory pay obligations while determining their fee structures.

Court’s Analysis of the Law

1. Review Jurisdiction Principles
   • A review is not an appeal but is limited to correcting glaring mistakes that result in a miscarriage of justice.
   • A review is only permissible if there is:
     • A patent mistake or
     • A self-evident error that does not require reasoning or re-examination.
   • The court found no such error in the original judgment.
2. Binding Nature of AICTE Regulations
   • The court reaffirmed that AICTE’s authority extends beyond recommendations and that its pay scale regulations are binding on all technical institutions, including unaided ones.
3. Recognition and Affiliation Conditions Are Enforceable
   • Institutions that seek recognition and affiliation from universities and regulatory bodies must comply with the conditions imposed by these entities.
   • Unaided minority institutions are not exempt from these obligations.
4. Financial Hardship Is Not a Defense
   • The court held that financial constraints do not justify non-compliance with statutory pay obligations.

Precedents Considered by the Court

1. Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission v. Bhartiya Kamgar Sangha (2017) 4 SCC 449
   • Government resolutions issued under statutory authority apply to unaided institutions.
2. TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481
   • Minority institutions have administrative autonomy, but cannot refuse to comply with legal obligations attached to recognition and affiliation.
3. P. A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537
   • Unaided minority institutions must comply with statutory conditions if they seek recognition.

Final Judgment & Court’s Observations

1. Review Petition Dismissed
   • The court found that all legal issues raised by the institution had already been addressed in the original judgment.
   • No “error apparent on the face of the record” was found.
2. Six-Week Window for Appeal
   • The court postponed the effect of its ruling for six weeks, allowing the management to challenge the judgment if they wished.
3. Condemnation of Delay Tactics
   • The court criticized the institution for filing a review petition to delay salary payments.
   • It emphasized that quality education depends on attracting qualified faculty, which requires fair salaries.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Unaided minority institutions must comply with AICTE pay scale norms.
2. Recognition and affiliation come with enforceable obligations.
3. Review petitions cannot be used as delay tactics.
4. Financial constraints do not justify violating statutory obligations.

This ruling reaffirms the principle that education sector regulations apply uniformly, regardless of minority status or financial concerns.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Reduces Compensation for Deceased Homemaker, Holds Major Sons Can Be Dependents for Gratuitous Services but Married Daughter Cannot, Modifies Loss of Dependency and Future Prospects Calculation