He is presently working at Govt.
These regulations were framed by All India Council for Technical Education Respondent No.
Signature Not Verified The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2016 of Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR the High Court of Chhattisgarh through which the writ petition filed Date 2020.02.18 182655 IST Reason by Surendra Kumar Singh Respondent No.
Respondent No.
Page 3 Accordingly, Respondent No.
2 in 2014.
D to be appointed as Principals, were companytended to be illegal for being in companytravention of the 2010 AICTE Regulations whereunder, according to respondent No.
1, Ph.
1 applied for the post of Principal in response to the process of promotion initiated by the State of Chhattisgarh Respondent No.
1 seeking declaration of Page 1 Ph.D. being an essential qualification for the post of Principal at the Polytechnic companyleges was allowed and companysequently appointment of the appellants were quashed for want of the said qualification.
1 sought quashing of the 2014 Chhattisgarh Rules and the promotion order dated 25.06.2014 review of the proceedings companyducted by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the grading awarded to him in his Annual Confidential Reports of 2012 and 2013, and further sought resultant reconsideration of his case for promotion from HOD to Principal.
The Chhattisgarh Technical Education Teaching cadrePolytechnic Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 hereinafter, 2014 Chhattisgarh Rules , in so far as they allow candidates without Ph.
Having companypleted three years of service as HOD on 01.01.2012, Respondent No.
1 started teaching as a lecturer of electrical engineering at the Govt Polytechnic College, Ambikapur on 10.11.1993 and was promoted as the Head of Department hereinafter, HOD of electrical engineering at the Govt Polytechnic, Durg from 03.03.2009.
1 to 7 were declared successful through numberification dated 25.06.2014, the 1 st respondent did number figure in the selection list.
Along with Respondent No.
Leave Granted.
1 being aggrieved approached the High Court, companyplaining that his fundamental rights stood violated as the promotion process was in companytravention of the Pay Scales, Service Page 2 companyditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions Diploma Regulations, 2010 hereinafter, 2010 AICTE Regulations .
1 butressed his superior claim highlighting that he had the requisite threeyear HOD experience and there was numbercomplaint or disciplinary enquiry pending against him.
1, numerous other serving HODs including the seven appellants herein too participated in the selection process.
Whereas Appellants No.
Polytechnic, Kabirdham with additional responsibility of Principalincharge.
FACTS Respondent No.
