recovery orders passed pursuant to the orders of the Commissioner of Technical Education. Case full order of. BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.03.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W. P.(MD) Nos.1661, 24375, 24761 & 25975 of 2019 4601, 4602, 6323, 6359, 6843

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W. P.(MD) Nos.1661, 24375, 24761 & 25975 of 2019
4601, 4602, 6323, 6359, 6843, 6923, 7070, 7915, 7918, 8029, 8902,
8971, 9413, 9823, 9841, 9977, 9978, 9986, 10003, 11379, 11392,
11418, 12373 & 16234 of 2020
1787, 8954, 8959, 9175, 9177, 9180, 9182, 9183, 9184, 9185, 9186,
9199, 9200, 9265 & 16686 of 2021
1711 & 1716 of 2022 and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.1415, 1416, 21006, 21367 & 22968 of 2019
3955, 3957, 3958, 3959, 5555, 5597, 5598, 6250, 6346, 6347, 7381,
7382, 7386, 7387, 7461, 7462, 8151, 8152, 8202, 8203, 8540, 8541,
8809, 8811, 8812, 8825, 8826, 8916, 8917, 8918, 8919, 8921, 8923,
8924, 8925, 8927, 8928, 8929, 8930, 8936, 9952, 9953, 9968, 9972, 9993, 9994, 10583, 10584, 10587, 13573, 13574, 13575 & 13576 of
2020
1519, 1521, 6754, 6755, 6910, 6911, 6914, 6916, 6917, 6918, 6919,
6920, 6931, 6932, 6933, 6978, 11066, 11067, 13572, 16915 & 16916 of
2021
727, 789, 811, 815, 838, 844, 918, 925, 1027, 1512, 1514, 1526, 1528, 1537, 1538, 1540, 1542 & 1543 of 2022
W.P.(MD) No.1661 of 2019:
M.Shanmuganathan … Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Principal Secretary Department of Higher Education Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009
2.The Commissioner of Technical Education
Directorate of Technical Education (DOTE)
53, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy Chennai-600 025
3.The Accounts – General
Office of the Accountant General
(Accounts & Entitlements) – Tamil Nadu
361, Anna Salai, Teynampet Chennai-600 018
4.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary
Personnel and Administrative
Reforms Department
Fort St.George
Chennai-600 009
5.The Chairman
All India Council for Technical Education
Nelson Mandela Marg
Vasant Kunj
New Delhi-110 070 … Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.58, dated 21.03.2018, issued by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to follow existing Recruitment Rules (RRs) and sanction all due promotions with arrears of backwages.
For Petitioner : Mr.Rajpal Singh
For Respondents : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader for R1, R2 & R4
Mr.P.Gunasekaran for R3
Mr.N.Dilip Kumar for R5
C O M M O N O R D E R
Since the issues involved in all the cases are identical, they have
been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. All the above writ petitions have been categorized as follows:
BATCH – I W.P.(MD) No.25975 of 2019
W.P.(MD) Nos.4601, 4602, 7070, 7918, 11392, 12373 &
16234 of 2020
W.P.(MD) Nos.8954, 8959, 9175, 9177, 9180, 9182, 9183, 9184, 9185, 9186, 9199, 9200, 9265 & 16686 of 2021
W.P.(MD) Nos.1711 & 1716 of 2022
BATCH – II W.P.(MD) Nos.24375 & 24761 of 2019
W.P.(MD) Nos.6323, 6359, 6843, 6923, 7915, 8029, 8902, 9413, 9823, 9841, 9977, 9978, 9986, 10003, 11379, 11418, of 2020
W.P.(MD) No.1787 of 2021
3. All these writ petitions have been filed questioning the recovery
orders passed pursuant to the orders of the Commissioner of Technical Education.
4. The petitioners are serving or retired Lecturers / Professors /
Heads of Departments in the Government Polytechnic Colleges / Government Aided Private Polytechnic Colleges and they have served as Instructors, Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Professors, Heads of Departments and Principals.
5. The issue involved in the case on hand is whether the pay
fixation and arrears of pay claimed by the petitioners are in consonance with the Regulations issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (for brevity “AICTE”), which were implemented by the Government through Government Orders.
6. The respective learned counsels appearing for the petitioners
mainly contended that with effect from 01.01.2006, the date on which the Pay Commission recommendations were implemented, the Government Order issued in G.O.(Ms) No.111, Higher Education (C2) Department, dated
25.05.2010, was implemented. Accordingly, the pay was revised with effect from 01.01.2006 to all the categories of teaching staff working in the Government Polytechnic Colleges and Government Aided Private Polytechnic Colleges. As per the said Government Order, Career Advancement Scheme has been provided and based on the qualifications and years of service rendered, Academic Grade Pay was fixed. The respective learned counsels appearing for the petitioners are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in respect of pay fixation made to all the petitioners in accordance with G.O.(Ms) No.111, Higher Education (C2) Department dated 25.05.2010.
7. Subsequently, All India Council for Technical Education (Career
Advancement Schemes for Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions) (Diploma) Regulations, 2012 (in short “2012 Regulations”) were issued. The said 2012 Regulations came into effect from the year 2012 and were implemented by the Government of Tamil Nadu by issuing G.O.(Ms) No. 58, Higher Education (C2) Department, dated 21.03.2018. The contentions of the petitioners are that the Career Advancement Scheme with reference to G.O.(Ms) No.111, dated 25.05.2010, was fixed in accordance with the
Government Order and they were receiving the pay accordingly. As far as 2012 Regulations are concerned, as per the eligibility, the pay was revised to the petitioners with reference to the qualifications stipulated in 2012 Regulations and therefore, the recovery is untenable and liable to be set aside.
8. It is further contended that the petitioners, who come under the
category of Batch-I writ petitions, were not provided with an opportunity to appear before the Screening Committee constituted under G.O.(Ms) No.58, Higher Education (C2) Department, dated 21.03.2018. Denial of opportunity is in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the event of affording due opportunity, the petitioners would be in a position to place their service details along with the Government Orders and convince the Committee for the purpose of establishing the correctness of the pay fixed in accordance with G.O.(Ms) No.111, Higher Education (C2) Department, dated 25.05.2010.
9. The respective learned counsels appearing for the petitioners,
with reference to certain individual cases, raised grounds by stating that the petitioners are fully qualified for Career Advancement Scheme. Their qualifications are not properly verified. Therefore, the impugned orders of recovery are not in consonance with the Government Orders as well as the Career Advancement Scheme. Some of the petitioners have raised a ground that their qualifications were ascertained by the Authorities concerned and pay fixation was done by the Management of the Polytechnic Colleges. Once the qualifications were verified in consonance with the Government Order, then there is no question of revising the same now after retirement in some cases and for in-service teaching staff in other cases.
10. While countering the arguments advanced on behalf of the
petitioners, the learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that errors were crept-in at various stages and the respective Polytechnic Management / Principals are the Pay Drawing Officers, who in turn without getting approval from the Commissioner of Technical Education, fixed pay at their whims and fancies by erroneously interpreting the Government Order as well as 2012 Regulations issued by AICTE.
11. The learned Additional Advocate General drew the attention of
this Court with reference to the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Technical Education to all the Principals of the Government Aided Private Polytechnic Colleges vide Letter dated 20.02.2012. In the said Circular, the Commissioner of Technical Education has specifically referred G.O.(Ms) No. 111, Higher Education (C2) Department, dated 25.05.2010. With reference to
G.O.(Ms) No.111, dated 25.05.2010, the said Circular was issued stating that while granting upgradation and fixation of pay, proposals along with all the particulars must be submitted to the Commissioner of Technical Education enabling him to grant approval for the purpose of revision of pay. In respect of Government Polytechnic Colleges are concerned, the Commissioner of Technical Education issued a separate Circular, dated 05.03.2012. Thus, with reference to fixation of pay and Academic Grade Pay and grant of Career Advancement Scheme, proposals are to be submitted in a prescribed format along with all details to the Commissioner of Technical Education and the said proposals are to be approved by the Commissioner of Technical Education, then alone the College concerned could submit a bill for drawal of pay.
12. The learned Additional Advocate General reiterated that the
said procedure had not been followed by the Pay Drawing Officers of the respective Polytechnic Colleges. Contrarily, they have adopted their own interpretation and granted pay fixation and Career Advancement Scheme in excess, which resulted in huge financial loss to the State Exchequer and this was traced out by the Authorities Competent and thereafter, actions were taken to set right the issue and recover the excess amount paid to the teaching staff of the respective Polytechnic Colleges.
13. The learned Additional Advocate General further pointed out
that the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.58, Higher Education (C2) Department, dated 21.03.2018, was issued in implementation of 2012 Regulations to the Government and Government Aided Private Polytechnic
Colleges. Pursuant to the said Government Order, Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee and Selection Committee were constituted. The constitution of the Committee is also done in the Government Order. Therefore, the Committee was constituted to rectify the anomalies, errors crept-in in respect of erroneous fixation of pay and grant of arrears under the Career Advancement Scheme to the teaching staff. The endeavour of the Committee is to ensure that the Government Orders issued in consonance with AICTE Regulations are properly implemented by the respective Polytechnic Colleges across the State of Tamil Nadu. In this context, the Commissioner of Technical Education has also issued Circulars to ensure that proposals must be submitted to him for the purpose of grant of approval. However, these Circulars issued by the Commissioner of Technical Education were not followed by the Polytechnic Colleges before effecting refixation of pay and grant of arrears to its teaching staff.

14. The learned Additional Advocate General relied on the
constitution of the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee, wherein the Commissioner of Technical Education / Nominee of Commissioner of Technical Education is shown as the Chairperson and the Principal of the College concerned, Head of the concerned Department from the Polytechnic College and two subject experts not connected with the College and in case of
Aided Polytechnic Colleges notified / declared as Minority Educational Institutions, one subject expert not connected with the State to be nominated by the Chairperson of the Governing Body of the College out of the panel of five names, preferably from minority communities, recommended by the State Government from the list of subject experts approved by the relevant statutory body of the College are also made as members. An academician representing SC / ST / OBC / Minority / Women / Differently-abled categories are also included. Therefore, the Committee was constituted in a fair and reasonable manner so as to avoid any bias in the matter of considering the issues and taking decision.
15. Relying on the constitution of the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Committee has gone into the issues regarding Career Advancement Scheme, scrutinized the same and found that there were large scale irregularities in the matter of pay fixation and payment of arrears made to the teaching staff.
16. The learned Additional Advocate General further contended
that the implementation of G.O.(Ms) No.111, dated 25.05.2010, is not in dispute. As per the said Government Order, the Career Advancement Scheme was given as prescribed in the said Government Order. However, for further Career Advancement Scheme under 2012 Regulations, G.O.(Ms) No.58, dated 21.03.2018, is to be followed and prior approval must be obtained from the
Commissioner. The said position is clarified in the G.O.(Ms) No.58, dated 21.03.2018 itself. The said Government Order further states that in order to achieve the norms of Career Advancement Scheme, after 08.11.2012, the qualifications contemplated under 2012 Regulations must be followed. Therefore, the Career Advancement Scheme implemented as per G.O.(Ms) No.
111, dated 25.05.2010 is not in dispute and further revision based on 2012 Regulations with retrospective effect was found to be irregular and not in consonance with the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.58, dated 21.03.2018.
17. The learned Additional Advocate General further submits that
for the faculty achieving the norms of Career Advancement Scheme after 08.11.2012, the academic grade progressions shall be fixed notionally on the date of attaining eligibility and the financial benefit from the date of issue of G.O.(Ms) No.58 i.e. from 21.03.2018. However, in the present case, the Career Advancement Scheme was implemented with retrospective effect and the monetary benefit was also granted with retrospective effect, which is in total violation of the Government Order and caused huge loss to the State Exchequer and therefore, the respondents are bound to initiate action for recovery of payment already made.
18. Heard the learned counsel on either side and carefully
perused the materials available on record.
19. On hearing the learned counsel on either side, this Court has
to to consider the scope of the Career Advancement Scheme with reference to the Government Orders, more specifically, with effect from 01.01.2006.
20. The Scheme of Career Advancement is a Scheme, which was
introduced for encouraging the teaching staff to acquire more educational qualifications for the benefit of the students studying in the Polytechnic Colleges and to impart better education. The said Scheme is not part of the service conditions. The Career Advancement Scheme is a special Scheme introduced pursuant to the recommendations of the University Grants Commission and AICTE for the purpose of encouraging the teaching staff and such schemes are not implemented for non-teaching staff. Thus, the Scheme is to be implemented strictly in consonance with the terms and conditions. The Scheme being a concession extended to the teaching staff and to encourage them to possess more educational qualifications for the purpose of imparting better education. It cannot be allowed to be implemented in excess, undoubtedly, which would create unnecessary financial loss to the State Exchequer.
21. Contextually, G.O.(Ms) No.111, Higher Education (C2) Department, dated 25.05.2010, would be relevant as far as the present writ petitions are concerned. The said Government Order states about the Revised Pay Scales, 2010 and Revision of Scale of Pay and Allowances etc., to the teachers and equivalent cadres in Government and Government Aided Polytechnic Colleges governed by AICTE. The said Government Order also states about pay fixation formula. Accordingly, the pay fixation adopted for the teachers governed by the University Grants Commission scales of pay shall be adopted for the teachers governed by the AICTE Scales of Pay. The detailed fitment tables for various existing scales of pay based on the formula are given in Appendix-III. The implementation of the said Government Order is also not disputed by the respondents. However, the erroneous fixation of pay alone is sought to be rectified with reference to the date of implementation and the manner in which it is implemented.
22. Let us now consider the spirit of G.O.(Ms) No.58, Higher Education (C2) Department, dated 21.03.2018. The said Government Order was issued pursuant to the implementation of 2012 Regulations to the Government and Government Aided Private Polytechnic Colleges. The said Government Order refers G.O.(Ms) No.111, Higher Education (C2) Department, dated 25.05.2010. Therefore, G.O.(Ms) No.58, dated 21.03.2018 is in continuation of G.O.(Ms) No.111, dated 25.05.2010 and in lieu of 2012 Regulations issued by AICTE. Thus, the pay fixation correctly made in accordance with G.O.(Ms) No.111, dated 25.05.2010, need not be disturbed.
However, while revising the scale of pay under 2012 Regulations with effect from the year 2018, the Government has to ensure that the qualifications contemplated under 2012 Regulations are scrupulously followed and accordingly, Career Advancement Scheme is implemented. In the event of any erroneous implementation of the Scheme, Authorities Competent are
empowered to initiate action.
23. In the present case, G.O.(Ms) No.58, dated 21.03.2018,
unambiguously provides constitution of Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee. The said Committee was constituted for the purpose of Career
Advancement Scheme implemented by all the Polytechnic Colleges across the State of Tamil Nadu, while the Committee consists the members, who all are from the respective Colleges also. Therefore, there is no need to doubt about the constitution of the Committee and the Committee constituted was for the purpose of screening the Career Advancement Scheme granted to the teaching staff of the Polytechnic Colleges. G.O.(Ms) No.58 speaks about G.O.(Ms) No. 111 also. A specific clarification is issued in Paragraph No.3(e) and (f), which is extracted hereunder:
“(e) The faculty who have already achieved the Career Advancement Scheme nors as specified in G.O. (Ms) No.111, Higher Education (C2) Department, dated
25.5.2010, before the issue of AICTE, Regulations on 8.11.2012, be given the Academic Grade Pay progression and monetary benefits from the date of attaining eligibility, since that Government Order has already been implemented and given effect to.
(f) G.O.(Ms) No.111, Higher Education (C2) Department, dated 25.5.2010, also states that norms as per AICTE Regulations shall become applicable for Career Advancement Scheme.
Since, AICTE Regulations were issued on
8.11.2012, from this date onwards, faculty should fulfill
Training and Publications norms as specified in the said Regulations.”
24. As per the aforesaid Government Order, the faculty, who have
already achieved the Career Advancement Scheme norms as specified in G.O. (Ms) No.111, Higher Education (C2) Department, dated 25.05.2010, before the issue of AICTE Regulations on 08.11.2012, be given the Academic Grade Pay Progression and monetary benefits from the date of attaining eligibility. The said Government Order was admittedly implemented and given effect to by the Authorities Competent. However, a dispute arose regarding implementation of 2012 Regulations with effect from 08.11.2012. While implementing G.O.(Ms) No.58, dated 21.03.2018, the effect was given erroneously by the Polytechnic Colleges and the monetary benefits were claimed retrospectively for which the teaching staff are not entitled and therefore, the Authorities Competent initiated actions for recovery of excess amount.
25. Paragraph No.3(h) of G.O.(Ms) No.58, dated 21.03.2018,
stipulates unambiguously as follows:
“(h) For the faculty achieving the Career
Advancement Scheme norms after 8.11.2012 (without
API till 7.11.2015 and with API from 8.11.2015), the Academic Grade Pay progression shall be fixed notionally on the date of attaining eligibility and with financial benefits from the date of issue of Government Order.”
26. Therefore, the Career Advancement Scheme norms after 08.11.2012, the Academic Grade Pay progression shall be fixed notionally on the date of attaining eligibility as per 2012 Regulations and financial benefits must be given with effect from the date of issue of the Government Order i.e.
21.03.2018. However, actual benefits were granted by the Polytechnic Colleges, more so, by the respective Principals of the Colleges, without getting prior approval from the Commissioner of Technical Education, with retrospective effect and by implementing G.O.(Ms) No.58, dated 21.03.2018, by adopting erroneous interpretation. This caused huge financial loss to the State Exchequer.
27. Now, the question arises an opportunity was provided to the
petitioners or not.
28. The learned Additional Advocate General made a submission
that in respect of revision of pay on Career Advancement Scheme, if an opportunity was not given or if those candidates had not already appeared before the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee, then an opportunity will be given to them for making their appearance from 21.03.2022 to 23.03.2022 from 11.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m. Therefore, all the petitioners, who had not appeared on the earlier occasion before the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee, are at liberty to send their service particulars, objections and documents establishing their eligibility through online to the Commissioner of Technical Education, who is the Chairman of the Committee and in turn will place the same before the Committee for consideration and accordingly, take a decision in consonance with the Scheme. Even if the petitioners have chosen to appear before the Committee in person, they are at liberty to appear before the Committee for representing their case from 21.03.2022 to 23.03.2022 between 11.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m.
29. The endeavour of the Committee is to ensure whether the
respective teaching staff fulfills the norms / eligibility / qualifications prescribed under the Regulations, which were implemented by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.(Ms) No.58, dated 21.03.2018. In the event of fulfilling the norms, the pay fixation on the Career Advancement Scheme shall be given notionally with effect from the date on which the staff attaining the eligibility and the financial benefits shall be given from the date of issue of G.O.(Ms) No.58 i.e.21.03.2018. However, if the Screening Committee found that fixations have been made erroneously and payments have been made in excess, then such excess amount is to be recovered from the teaching staff concerned.
30. This Court is of the considered opinion that unjust
enrichment of public money is impermissible. Tax payers’ money is being paid by way of salary to the teaching staff of Polytechnic Colleges. They are entitled to get pay as per the Scheme and as per the norms of AICTE and Government Orders in force. Erroneous fixation and excess payment would result in unjust enrichment and hence, excess payment is to be recovered and to be deposited in the Government Treasury by all concerned. Certain exceptions have been carved out by the Honourable Supreme Court in cases, where there is an extreme hardship caused. However, in all other cases, any excess payment is made to the public servant, excess payment must be recovered.
31. In Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others vs. State of Uttarkhand and others, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417, the Honourable
Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as “tax payers money” which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over-payment nor that of the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. Question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by Government officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.
15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir case (supra) and in Col. B.J. Akkara (retd.) case (supra), the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered.
16. The appellants in the appeal will not fall in any of these exceptional categories, over and above, there was a stipulation in the fixation order that in the condition of irregular/wrong pay fixation, the institution in which the appellants were working would be responsible for recovery of the amount received in excess from the salary/pension. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. However, we order the excess payment made be recovered from the appellant’s salary in twelve equal monthly installments starting from October 2012.”
32. The above principles have been reiterated by the Apex Court in
the subsequent Judgments also. Therefore, any excess payment must be recovered by the Competent Authorities and there should not be any scope for unjust enrichment.
33. As far as the case on hand is concerned. The same would not
fall under the exempted category from recovery as the petitioners are / were working as Professors, Lecturers, Heads of Departments, Principals etc., which all are falling under Group-A Category. More over, even they are receiving decent amount of salary / pension. Under those circumstances, if any excess payment is made, it is to be recovered and if at all there is any personal grievance raised, it is to be recovered by way of equal installments.
34. As per 2012 Regulations (Notification dated 08.11.2012, the
minimum academic performance and service requirements for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme applicable for the teachers of Polytechnic
Colleges (Engineering) are as follows:

1 2 3 I
G.O.Ms.No.111
Hr.Edn.dated
25.05.2010 II
AICTE
Regulation-2012 without Academic
Performance Indicator III
AICTE
Regulation-2012 with Academic
Performance Indicator
S.
No Promotio n of
Teachers through
CAS Service
Requireme nts 01.01.2006 to
07.11.2012 08.11.2012 to
07.11.2015 08.11.2015 to till date
1 STAGE 1
Rs. 5400/- to Rs.
6000/- 1) Lecturer completed
6 years with B.E., only(witho ut
M.E.,/Ph.D
.,) Two AICTE/State Government approved refresher Programs of not less than two weeks each duration and two one week each TEQIP sponsored programs
Two
courses/programs of one week duration each approved of conducted by
AICTE/UGC/MHRD/
DST/Central/State Govt.
Universities/Institut
es may also by considered as alternative to TEQIP programs. Two AICTE/State Government approved refresher Programs of not less than two weeks each duration and two one week each TEQIP sponsored programs
Two
courses/programs
of one week duration each approved of conducted by
AICTE/UGC/MHR D/DST/
Central/State Govt. Universities/Institu
tes may also be considered as alternative to TEQIP programs. Two AICTE/State Government approved refresher Programs of not less than two weeks each duration and two one week each TEQIP sponsored programs
Two
courses/programs
of one week duration each approved of conducted by AICTE/UGC/MHR D/DST/Central/St
ate Govt. Universities/Institu
tes may also by considered as alternative to TEQIP programs.

2 STAGE 1
to 2
Rs. 6000/- to Rs.
7000/- 1) Lecturer completed
4 years with Ph.D., in the
relevant discipline
2) Lecturer completed
5 years with M.E., in the
relevant discipline.
3) Lecturer with B.E., (6+3=9 years) Two AICTE/State Government approved refresher Programs of not less than two weeks each duration and two one week each TEQIP sponsored programs
Two
courses/programs of one week duration each approved of conducted by
AICTE/UGC/MHRD/
DST/Central/State Govt.
Universities/Institut
es may also by considered as alternative to TEQIP programs. 1) One orientation and one
Refresher/Researc
h Methodology Course of 2/3 weeks duration approved or conducted by
AICTE/Central
Govt./State
Govt./TEQIP/CIICP
/ISTE/NITTR/IIT/ DTE/SBTE/Univer sity,etc.
2) Screening-cumVerification process for recommending promotion. 1) Minimum API Scores using PBAS scoring proformance developed by the AICTE as per the norms provided in Table 2
2) One orientation and one Refresher/Research
Methodology
Course of 2/3 weeks duration approved or conducted by
AICTE/Central
Govt./State
Govt./TEQIP/CIICP
/ISTE/NITTR/IIT/ DTE/SBTE/Univer sity, etc.
3) Screening-cumVerification process for recommending promotion.

3 STAGE 2 TO 3
Rs. 7000/- to Rs.
8000/- Lecturer with completed services of 5 years in stage 2
Lecturer with completed services of 4 years in stage 2 for PhD holders
(for only those Lecturers
who have not availed the benefit in the
previous stage upwardmovement) Two AICTE/State Government approved refresher Programs of not less than two weeks each duration and two one week each TEQIP sponsored programs
Two
courses/programs of one week duration each approved of conducted by
AICTE/UGC/MHRD/ DST/Central/
State Govt.
Universities/Institut
es may also be considered as alternative to TEQIP programs. 1) One Course Program from among the categories of
refresher courses,methodolog
y workshops,
Training,Teaching-
LearningEvaluation
Technology
Programs, Soft
Skills development
Programs and
Faculty
Development
Programs of 2/3 weeks duration approved or conducted by
AICTE/Central
Govt./State
Govt./TEQIP/CIICP
/ISTE/NITTR/IIT/ DTE/SBTE/Univer sity,etc.
2) Screening-cumVerification process for recommending
promotion 1) Minimum API Scores using PBAS scoring proforms developed by the concerned State Govt. as per the norms provided in Table 2
2) One Course Program from among the categories of refresher courses, methodology workshops,
Training, Teaching-
LearningEvaluation
Technology
Programs, Soft
Skills development
Programs and
Faculty
Development
Programs of 2/3 weeks duration approved or conducted by
AICTE/Central
Govt./State
Govt./TEQIP/CIICP
/ISTE/NITTR/IIT/ DTE/SBTE/Univer sity,etc.
3) Screening-cumVerification process for recommending
promotion
STAGE 3 Lecturer Two AICTE/State 1) At least three 1) Minimum API
TO 4with Government publications in the Scores using PBAS completed approved refresher entire period as scoring proforms Rs.services of Programs of not less Lecturer(12 Years). developed by the
8000/- to 3 years in than two weeks each However in the AICTE as per the Rs.stage 3duration and two case of College norms provided in
9000/-one week each teachers an Table 2
(However, TEQIP sponsored exemption of one
those programspublication will be 2) At least three joining the given to M.Phil., publications in the Service Two Holders and an entire period as after courses/programs of exemption of two Lecturer(12 Years). 05.03.2010 one week duration publications will be However in the case shall have each approved or given to of College teachers also earned conducted by Ph.D.,holders.an exemption of Ph.D., in AICTE/UGC/MHRD/one publication will the DST/Central/State 2) Programs of be given to M.Phil., relevant Govt. minimum one week Holders and an discipline, Universities/Institutduration approved exemption of two in addition es may also by or conducted by publications will be to the considered as AICTE/Central given to Ph.D., conditions alternative to TEQIP Govt./State One holders. laid down programs.Course/Program
in from among the 3) Programs of
Regulation categories of minimum one week dated methodology duration approved
408.11.2012workshops, or conducted by
)(3.8 of Training, Teaching-AICTE/Central
AICTE Learning-Govt./State One 2012 Evaluation Course/Program notificatioTechnology from among the n)Programs, Soft categories of
Skills development methodology
Programs and workshops,
Faculty Training, TeachingDevelopment Learning-
Govt./TEQIP/CIICPEvaluation
/ISTE/NITTR/IIT/Technology
DTE/SBTE/UniverPrograms, Soft sity,etc.Skills development
Programs and
3) A Selection Faculty Committee Process Development as stipulated in the Govt./TEQIP/CIICP Regulation and in /ISTE/NITTR/IIT/ Table II(A)/II(B) of DTE/SBTE/Univer Appendix I.sity,etc.
4) A Selection Committee Process
5 STAGE 4 TO 5
Rs. 9000/- to Rs.
10000/- HOD with 3 years of completed service with Ph.D., in the
relevant discipline upto 07.11.2012
.
HOD/Lect
urer with 3 years of completed service in stage 4 with Ph.D., in the
relevant Discipline on or after
08.11.2012
AICTE
Clarificatio
n Dated
04.01.2016
Serial No. 24 and
Page No.
24 HOD with 3 years of completed service with Ph.D., in the relevant Discipline
Two AICTE/State Government approved refresher programs of not less than two weeks each duration and two one week each TEQIP sponsored programs.
Two
courses/programs of one week duration each approved or conducted by
AICTE/UGC/MHRD/
DST/Central/State
Govt. Universities/
Institutes may also be considered as alternative to TEQIP programs. 1)HOD/Lecturer with 3 years of completed service in stage 4 with Ph.D., in the
relevant Discipline
2) A Minimum of three publications since the period that the teacher is placed in stage.
3) A Selection Committee Process as stipulated in the
Regulation and in Table II(A)/II(B) of Appendix I. 1)HOD/Lecturer with 3 years of completed service in stage 4 with Ph.D., in the
relevant Discipline
2) Minimum
yearly/cumulative API scores using the PBAS scoring proforma developed by the AICTE as per the norms provided in Table 2.
Teachers may combine two
assessment periods(in Stages 2 and 3) to achieve minimum API
Scores,if required.
3) A Minimum of three publications since the period that the teacher is placed in stage.
4) A Selection Committee Process as stipulated in the Regulation and in
Table 2
35. The minimum academic performance and service
requirements for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme applicable for the teachers of Polytechnic Colleges (Non Engineering – Humanities) are as follows:

1 2 3 I
G.O.Ms.No.111
Hr.Edn.dated
25.05.2010 II
AICTE
Regulation-2012 without Academic
Performance Indicator III
AICTE
Regulation-2012 with Academic
Performance Indicator
S.
No Promotion
of
Teachers through
CAS Service
Requirement s 01.01.2006 to
07.11.2012 08.11.2012 to
07.11.2015 08.11.2015 to
till date
1 STAGE 1
Rs.5400/- to
Rs.6000/- 1)Lecturer completed 6 years with
M.A.,/M.SC.,
/
M.Com., only(without M.Phil.,/Ph.D
.,) Two AICTE/State Government approved
refresher
Programs of not less than two weeks each duration and two one week each TEQIP sponsored programs
Two
courses/programs of one week duration each approved of conducted by AICTE/UGC/MH
RD/DST/Central
/State Govt.
Universities/Instit utes may also by considered as alternative to TEQIP programs. Two AICTE/State Government approved refresher Programs of not less than two weeks each duration and two one week each TEQIP sponsored programs
Two
courses/programs
of one week duration each approved of conducted by
AICTE/UGC/MHRD /DST/
Central/State Govt. Universities/Institut
es may also be considered as alternative to TEQIP programs. Two AICTE/State Government approved
refresher
Programs of not less than two weeks each duration and two one week each TEQIP sponsored programs
Two
courses/programs of one week duration each approved or conducted by AICTE/UGC/MHR
D/DST/Central/
State Govt.
Universities/
Institutes may also by considered as alternative to TEQIP programs.

2 STAGE 1
to 2
Rs.6000/- to
Rs.7000/- 1) Lecturer completed 4 years with
Ph.D., in the relevant discipline
2) Lecturer completed 5 years with M.Phil., in the relevant discipline.
3) Lecturer with M.A.,/M.Sc.,
/
M.Com.,
(6+3=9 years) Two AICTE/State Government approved refresher
Programs of not less than two weeks each duration and two one week each TEQIP sponsored programs
Two
courses/programs of one week duration each approved of conducted by AICTE/UGC/MH
RD/DST/Central
/State Govt.
Universities/Instit utes may also by considered as alternative to TEQIP programs. 1) One orientation and one Refresher/Research Methodology Course of 2/3 weeks duration approved or conducted by
AICTE/Central
Govt./State
Govt./TEQIP/CIICP
/ISTE/NITTR/IIT/D TE/SBTE/Universit y,etc.
2) Screening-cumVerification process for recommending promotion. 1) Minimum API Scores using
PBAS scoring
proforms developed by the AICTE as per the norms provided in Table 2
2) One orientation and one
Refresher/Resear ch Methodology Course of 2/3 weeks duration approved or conducted by
AICTE/Central
Govt./State
Govt./TEQIP/CII
CP/ISTE/NITTR/I
IT/DTE/SBTE/
University, etc.
3)Screening-cumVerification
process for
recommending promotion.

3 STAGE 2
TO 3
Rs.7000/-
to
Rs.8000/- Lecturer with completed services of 5 years in stage 2
Lecturer with completed services of 4 years in stage
2 for PhD
holders
(for only
those Lecturers who have not availed the benefit in the previous stage upwardmovement)
For those joining the service after
05.03.2010,
Ph.D is
essential qualification
for upward
movement
to
Lecturer(Sel ection Grade)(SI.
No. 10 of AICTE 2016
clarification) Two AICTE/State Government approved refresher
Programs of not less than two weeks each duration and two one week each TEQIP sponsored programs
Two
courses/programs of one week duration each approved of conducted by AICTE/UGC/MH
RD/DST/Central
/State Govt.
Universities/Instit utes may also by considered as alternative to TEQIP programs. 1) One Course Program from among the categories of
refresher courses,methodolog
y workshops,
Training,TeachingLearning-Evaluation
Technology
Programs, Soft
Skills development
Programs and
Faculty
Development
Programs of 2/3 weeks duration approved or conducted by
AICTE/Central
Govt./State
Govt./TEQIP/CIICP
/ISTE/NITTR/IIT/D TE/SBTE/Universit y,etc.
2) Screening-cumVerification process for recommending promotion 1) Minimum API Scores using
PBAS scoring
proforma developed by the AICTE as per the norms provided in Table 2
2) One Course Program from among the categories of refresher courses, methodology workshops, Training,
Teaching-
LearningEvaluation
Technology
Programs, Soft
Skills development
Programs and
Faculty
Development
Programs of 2/3 weeks duration approved or conducted by
AICTE/Central
Govt./State
Govt./TEQIP/CII
CP/ISTE/NITTR/I IT/DTE/SBTE/U niversity,etc.
3) Screening-cumVerification
process for
recommending promotion
STAGE 3 Lecturer with Two AICTE/State 1) At least three 1) Minimum API
TO 4completed Government publications in the Scores using
services of 3 approved entire period as PBAS scoring Rs.8000/- years in stage refresher Lecturer(12 Years). proforma to 3Programs of not However in the case developed by the
Rs.9000/-less than two of College teachers AICTE as per the (However, weeks each an exemption of one norms provided in those joining duration and two publication will be Table 2 the Service one week each given to M.Phil.
after TEQIP sponsored Holders and an 2) At least three 05.03.2010 programsexemption of two publications in shall have publications will be the entire period also earned Two given to as Lecturer(12
Ph.D., in the courses/programs Ph.d.,holders.Years). However relevant of one week in the case of discipline, in duration each 2) Programs of College teachers addition to approved or minimum one week an exemption of the conducted by duration approved one publication conditions AICTE/UGC/MHor conducted by will be given to laid down in RD/DST/CentralAICTE/Central M.Phil. Holders Regulation /State Govt. Govt./State One and an exemption dated Universities/InstitCourse/Program of two
08.11.2012)utes may also by from among the publications will (3.8 of AICTE considered as categories of be given to 2012 alternative to methodology Ph.D.,holders.
notification)TEQIP programs.workshops,
Training, Teaching-3) Programs of Learning-Evaluation minimum one
Technology week duration
4Programs,Skills development Soft approvedconducted byor
Programs and AICTE/Central
Faculty Govt./State One
Development Course/Program
Govt./TEQIP/CIICPfrom among the /ISTE/NITTR/IIT/Dcategories of TE/SBTE/Universitmethodology
y,etc.workshops,
Training,
3) A Selection TeachingCommittee Process Learningas stipulated in the Evaluation Regulation and in Technology
Table 2.Programs, Soft
Skills development
Programs and
Faculty
Development
Govt./TEQIP/CII
5 STAGE 4
TO 5
Rs.9000/- to Rs.
10000/- HOD/lecture
r with 3 years of completed service with Ph.D., in the relevant discipline upto 07.11.2012.
HOD/Lecture
r with 3 years of completed service in stage 4 with Ph.D., in the relevant
Discipline on or after
08.11.2012
AICTE
Clarification
Dated
04.01.2016
Serial No. 24 and Page No.
24 HOD with 3 years of completed service in stage 4 with Ph.D., in the
relevant Discipline
Two AICTE/State Government approved
refresher programs of not less than two weeks each duration and two one week each TEQIP sponsored programs.
Two
courses/programs of one week duration each approved or conducted by AICTE/UGC/MH
RD/DST/Central
/State Govt.
Universities/
Institutes may also by considered as alternative to TEQIP programs. 1) HOD/Lecturer with 3 years of completed service in stage 4 with Ph.D., in the relevant
Discipline
2) A Minimum of three publications since the period that the teacher is placed in stage.
3) A Selection Committee Process as stipulated in the Regulation and in Table 2. 1) HOD/Lecturer with 3 years of completed service in stage 4 with Ph.D., in the
relevant Discipline
2) Minimum
yearly/cumulative API scores using the PBAS scoring proforma developed by the AICTE as per the norms provided in Table 2. Teachers may combine two assessment periods(in Stages
2 and 3) to achieve minimum API Scores,if required.
3) A Minimum of three publications since the period that the teacher is placed in stage.
4) A Selection
Committee
Process as stipulated in the Regulation and in
Table 2
36. With reference to the above, the learned Additional Advocate General for example demonstrated that in some cases, where erroneous pay fixation / academic grade pay movement was made by the Principal of the Institution. While perusing the particulars given in many cases, the academic grade pay was granted with effect from 01.01.2006, without properly verifying the eligibility of the Government Order in force, in certain cases, benefits were given with retrospective effect, which is not contemplated in G.O.(Ms) No.58, dated 21.03.2018. However, all these factors are to be verified with reference to the eligibility and qualification of the individuals in accordance with the Scheme and the same are to be rectified and excess payment, if any, paid to the teaching staff must be recovered in the interest of public as pointed out earlier. No Government servant should be allowed to have unjust enrichment of public money.
37. The Career Advancement Scheme with reference to 2012 Regulations and the consequential Government Order are made undoubtedly based on the erroneous interpretation of the Government Order. The eligibility criteria date from which the monetary benefits to be extended both notional and actual resulted in huge monetary loss to the State Exchequer running to several crores. The wrong interpretation and excess payment of monetary benefits to the teaching staff is particularly made since no prior approval of the of Commissioner of Technical Education was obtained and in the event of obtaining any such approval, uniformity and consistency would have been maintained. Without obtaining prior approval from the Commissioner of Technical Education, each Polytechnic College fixed the pay and paid arrears as per their own interpretation or by following the other Colleges. In view of the anomalous situation and considering the fact that there is a huge financial loss to the Government, while implementing the Government Orders, the Government constituted a Screening Committee for the purpose of verification of eligibility and therefore, the Screening Committee must be allowed to do the said exercise thoroughly by assessing the eligibility of the teaching staff, fix their eligibility and accordingly, grant Career Advancement Scheme by fixing the scale of pay in accordance with the Scheme. Such an exercise is imminent for the purpose of settling the issues and to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings.
38. In view of the fact that this Court cannot conduct an enquiry
in respect of the individual’s qualifications and eligibility, the matters are to be placed before the Screening Committee for ascertaining the eligibility of the individuals for correct pay fixation and for the benefits of Career Advancement Scheme.
39. As far as Batch-I writ petitions are concerned, it is submitted
by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioners were not provided with an opportunity to place their objections before the Screening Committee. Though the Management had participated in the Screening Committee as members, the individual are also to be provided with an opportunity to submit their respective defence / objections and establish their eligibility for the purpose of getting benefits of Career Advancement Scheme.
40. The learned Additional Advocate General undertakes that once
the Committee makes a fresh recommendation, certain orders, which all are correctly passed by the Management, will be confirmed and in such cases, there is no necessity for the Authority Competent to pass fresh orders and in cases, where mistakes occurred, then fresh orders will be passed by the Authority Competent in accordance with the Government Orders in force by cancelling the earlier orders.
41. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioners come under Batch-I writ petitions are entitled to get opportunity to appear before the Screening Committee scheduled to be conducted from 21.03.2022 to 23.03.2022 between 11.00 a.m., and 05.00 p.m.
42. This being the factum,
➢ The orders impugned in the Batch-I writ
petitions are directed to be kept in abeyance till such time the Committee takes a decision after affording due opportunity to all the petitioners in Batch-I writ petitions and orders are passed by the Authority competent.
➢ The petitioners in Batch-I writ petitions are at liberty to send their service particulars, objections and documents establishing their eligibility through online to the Commissioner of Technical Education, who is the Chairman of the Committee. Even if the petitioners have chosen to appear before the Screening Committee in person, they are at liberty to appear before the Committee for representing their case from 21.03.2022 to 23.03.2022 between 11.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m.
➢ Thereafter, the Authority Competent shall consider the same in consonance with the Scheme and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as
possible.
43. Insofar as the petitioners come under Batch-II writ petitions
are concerned, they have availed the opportunity and appeared before the Screening Committee and presented their case. Therefore, providing further opportunity to them would not arise at all as the principles of natural justice have been complied with. The only endeavour is to ensure that the correctness or otherwise of the impugned orders now questioned by the petitioners is to be once again scrutinized by the Appellate Authority. As far as the Original Authority is concerned, the petitioners have participated before the Screening Committee representing their case and the Original Authority has taken a decision and issued the impugned orders of recovery and this
Court do not find any infirmity. In such view of the matter,
➢ the petitioners come under Batch-II writ petitions are at liberty to prefer appeal along with the documents and Government Orders in force under the General Rules before the Secretary to Government, Higher
Education Department / Appellate Authority.
➢ In the event of submitting any such appeal, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible.
➢ The petitioners are at liberty to file interim applications along with the appeals before the Appellant Authority for grant of stay of the recovery orders.
44. W.P.(MD) No.1661 of 2019 is concerned, Mr.Rajpal Singh,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a submission that he is confining the relief sought for in the writ petition as the learned Additional Advocate General made a submission that the petitioners will be permitted to appear before the Screening Committee to place all the documents and to establish their case. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.1661 of 2019 is directed to comply with the directions issued in respect of Batch-I writ petitions.
45. As far as W.P.(MD) No.8971 of 2020 is concerned, The
Authority Competent is directed to verify as to whether the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No.8971 of 2020 has appeared before the Screening Committee. In case he had not appeared before the Screening Committee, he should be permitted to appear before the Screening Committee as per the directions granted in respect of Batch-I writ petition. In case, he appeared before the Screening Committee, then he should be permitted to prefer appeal as per the directions granted in Batch-II writ petitions..
46. The Secretary to Government and the Commissioner of Technical Education are directed to ensure that all the pay fixations and other monetary benefits granted under various Schemes are implemented scrupulously, only after getting prior approval from the Commissionarate of Technical Education and the Government, as the case may be. In the event of any implementation of monetary benefits without getting prior approval from the Heads of the Departments or Government, then, the Management / Authority concerned of the Government Aided Private Polytechnic Colleges must be held responsible and accountable and suitable actions are to be initiated against the Educational Agency / Management and in case of Government Polytechnic Colleges, disciplinary action must be taken against the Principal / Authorities of the Colleges and the monetary loss to the Government must be recovered from all concerned and this direction shall be communicated by the Commissioner of Technical Education to all the Polytechnic Colleges, either Government or Government Aided throughout the State of Tamil Nadu.
47. It is made clear that the learned counsels for the petitioners
shall inform the petitioners not to wait for the certified copy of this order and submit their explanations / objections / eligibility etc., to the Commissioner of Technical Education, who is the Chairman of the Screening Committee through online or in person or otherwise as directed above.
48. With the above observations and directions all these writ
petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
10.03.2022
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No krk
To:
1.The Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Technical Education,
Directorate of Technical Education (DOTE), 53, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 025.
4.The Secretary
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009. 
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
krk
W. P.(MD) Nos.1661, 24375, 24761 &
25975 of 2019
4601, 4602, 6323, 6359, 6843, 6923,
7070, 7915, 7918, 8029, 8902, 8971,
9413, 9823, 9841, 9977, 9978, 9986,
10003, 11379, 11392, 11418, 12373 &
16234 of 2020
1787, 8954, 8959, 9175, 9177, 9180,
9182, 9183, 9184, 9185, 9186, 9199,
9200, 9265 & 16686 of 2021
1711 & 1716 of 2022 and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.1415, 1416, 21006, 21367
& 22968 of 2019
3955, 3957, 3958, 3959, 5555, 5597,
5598, 6250, 6346, 6347, 7381, 7382,
7386, 7387, 7461, 7462, 8151, 8152,
8202, 8203, 8540, 8541, 8809, 8811,
8812, 8825, 8826, 8916, 8917, 8918,
8919, 8921, 8923, 8924, 8925, 8927,
8928, 8929, 8930, 8936, 9952, 9953,
9968, 9972, 9993, 9994, 10583, 10584,
10587, 13573, 13574, 13575 & 13576 of
2020
1519, 1521, 6754, 6755, 6910, 6911,
6914, 6916, 6917, 6918, 6919, 6920,
6931, 6932, 6933, 6978, 11066, 11067, 13572, 16915 & 16916 of 2021
727, 789, 811, 815, 838, 844, 918, 925,
1027, 1512, 1514, 1526, 1528, 1537,
1538, 1540, 1542 & 1543 of 2022
10.03.2022