Karnataka HC Upholds Removal Of Lecturer Lacking Mandatory Qualification
The bench set aside orders of the Educational Appellate Tribunal and a Single Judge directing the institution to reinstate lecturer MV Ramesha. Reports Ramesh
Published : October 3, 2026 at 10:31 PM IST
|Updated : October 3, 2026 at 10:45 PM IST
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has held that terminating a lecturer who did not possess the mandatory postgraduate qualification prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) for teaching in a technical institution was legally valid.
However, it directed the college management to pay ₹12 lakh compensation to the lecturer for having allowed him to continue in service for four years despite knowing that he lacked the required qualification.
A Division Bench comprising Justices DK Singh and H. Shanti Bhushan passed the order on October 1 while allowing an appeal filed by Rajeev Institute of Technology, run by Rajeev Educational Trust in Hassan.
The Bench set aside orders of the Educational Appellate Tribunal (EAT) and a Single Judge directing the institution to reinstate lecturer MV. Ramesha.
Court Distinguishes Ineligibility from Misconduct
The High Court observed that a departmental inquiry is necessary when disciplinary action is initiated against an employee for alleged misconduct. However, absence of a statutory educational qualification is not misconduct but a question of eligibility for the post.
Therefore, no departmental inquiry was required before relieving the lecturer from service on the ground that he did not possess the mandatory qualification, the Bench said.
The court further held that although Section 92(1) of the Karnataka Education Act contains safeguards for employees, those provisions cannot override the mandatory qualification requirements prescribed by the AICTE.
Courts Cannot Dilute Academic Standards
The Bench observed that courts cannot dilute qualification norms framed by expert bodies to maintain standards in technical education.
At the same time, the court found that the college management could not completely escape responsibility. Although Ramesh did not possess the required qualification, the institution had allowed him to continue teaching for about four years, creating an impression that he was eligible to hold the post.
Taking this into consideration, the Bench directed the management to pay him ₹12 lakh as compensation within four weeks.
Lecturer Given Three Years to Upgrade Qualification
The case relates to Rajeev Institute of Technology in Hassan, established in 2008 and affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University. Ramesh joined the institution as a lecturer in the Civil Engineering Department on February 7, 2011.
Under the revised AICTE regulations of 2010, an ME or MTech degree was made mandatory for teaching engineering students. However, as the revised requirement had not then been implemented in the State, a BE degree was considered sufficient when Ramesh was appointed.
The college management subsequently gave him three years to obtain the higher qualification. According to the institution, Ramesh did not pursue or obtain the required postgraduate degree during that period. The college consequently relieved him from service in 2015.
Earlier Orders Favoured Lecturer
Ramesh challenged his termination before the EAT. The EAT held that his removal was improper and directed the institution to reinstate him to the same post and pay his salary arrears. The educational institution challenged that decision before the High Court. A Single Judge upheld the Tribunal’s order, following which the management filed an appeal before the Division Bench.
Allowing the institution’s appeal, the Division Bench has now overturned both earlier orders.
The High Court in its order said, "Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant-Institute cannot escape the liability completely in making the respondent
believe that he was qualified to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor and in fact, the respondent continued for a period of four years though he did not possess qualification as prescribed by the AICTE Regulations."
"Thus, in equity, we direct the appellant-Institute to pay a sum of Rs. 12 Lakhs to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today," the court said.
Read More
