Supreme Court :NIT Professors Win Notional Promotions But Lose Back Pay & Experience Claims

Case Title: Ritu Garg & Ors. vs Board of Governors BOG & Ors.Case Title: Ritu Garg & Ors. vs Board of Governors BOG & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the 2023 statutory amendment introducing Statute 9 was clarificatory and retrospective in nature. It cured the legal defect identified by the High Court in the earlier executive instruction, thereby validating the one-time relaxation for promotion. The amendment did not overreach judicial power but removed the basis of the earlier judgment.

Facts Of The Case:

The case involves Assistant Professors at NIT Kurukshetra who, despite lacking the required Academic Grade Pay, were granted a one-time relaxation via a 2017 Government letter to apply for promotion to Associate Professor. Following an advertisement in 2018, they were selected. However, the Punjab & Haryana High Court struck down the relaxation, ruling it contravened the NIT Act’s Statutes. After the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, the Government initiated a statutory amendment, which was approved by the President and notified in June 2023. This amendment, via Statute 9, retrospectively validated the 2017 relaxation for the stalled recruitment at NIT Kurukshetra. A subsequent writ petition challenged this amendment. The High Court, while upholding the amendment’s validity, erroneously directed a fresh recruitment process. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding the amendment was clarificatory, cured the legal defect, and validated the original 2018 selection, permitting notional promotion for the selected candidates.

Procedural History:

The procedural history of the case commenced with the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s 2019 Division Bench judgment, which declared the 2017 executive letter granting promotion relaxations as invalid for contravening the NIT Act’s Statutes. This was challenged before the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed in January 2022. Subsequently, the Government of India amended the First Statutes in 2023 to incorporate the relaxation retrospectively. New writ petitions were then filed challenging this amendment. The High Court, in its impugned 2024 order, upheld the amendment’s validity but erroneously directed a fresh recruitment process, treating it as prospective. The present civil appeals before the Supreme Court were filed against this portion of the High Court’s order, culminating in the final judgment which modified the High Court’s directive.

READ ALSO:Decade-Long Separation Ends: Supreme Court Grants Divorce Under Article 142

Court Observation:

The Supreme Court made key observations centered on statutory interpretation and the legislature’s curative power. It held that the 2023 amendment, particularly Statute 9, was clarificatory and retrospective in nature. Its purpose was to cure the specific legal defect—the impermissible use of an executive instruction to supplant a statute—identified by the High Court in its earlier judgment. By removing this basis, the amendment did not amount to overreaching judicial power but was a valid exercise to retrospectively validate the one-time relaxation and the consequent 2018 recruitment process for NIT Kurukshetra. The Court further observed that such a clarificatory amendment must be read contextually and holistically to achieve its intended purpose of placing the institute’s faculty at par with others nationwide.

Final Decision & Judgement:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part and modified the High Court’s order. It directed that the appellants and intervenors who were selected and recommended for the post of Associate Professor pursuant to the 2018 advertisement be considered for notional appointment with effect from a date after November 27, 2018. However, they would not be entitled to any arrears of salary or claim teaching experience from the notional date for future promotions. The one-time relaxation under Statute 9 was deemed exhausted upon this implementation. The Court upheld the validity of the 2023 statutory amendment as curative and clarificatory, thereby setting aside the High Court’s directive for a fresh recruitment process.

Case Details:

Case Title: Ritu Garg & Ors. vs Board of Governors BOG & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1285
Civil Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 11897/2025 
Date of Judgement: October 29, 2025
Judges/Justice Name: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
 Download The Judgement Here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *