JUDGMENT : Serto, J. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. H.Zodinsanga appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 23/3/2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 203/2016, wherein the prayer of the appellants (petitioners in the writ petition) i.e. to quash and set aside the orders dated 28/1/2016, and dated 10/6/2016, whereby the pay of the appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 were re-fixed by withdrawing the three non- compounded increments granted earlier for having acquired Ph.D in respective subjects was rejected. 3. The four appellants who were working as Lecturers at Pachhunga University College Aizawl were placed as Lecturers (Senior Scale) as per the UGC guidelines/scheme provided under UGC Notification on Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges and Other measures for the Maintenance of Standards, 1998. Clause-7 of the guidelines provided as follows; "7.1.1 Minimum length of service for eligibility to move into the grade of Lecturer (Senior scale) would be four years for those with Ph.D, five years for those with M. Phil and six years for others at the level of lecturer, and for eligibility to move into the Grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader, the minimum length of service as Lecturer (Senior Grade) shall be uniformly five years." 7.3.0. Lecturers in Senior SCALE who do not have a Ph.D degree or equivalent published work, and who do not meet the scholarship and research standards, but fulfil the other criteria given above for the post of reader, and have a good record in teaching and preferably, have contributed in various ways such as to the corporate life of the institution, examination work, or through extension activities, will be placed in the Selection Grade, subject to the recommendation of the Selection Committee which is the same as the post of Reader. They will be designated as lecturers in the Selection Grade. They could offer themselves for fresh assessment after obtaining Ph.D and/or fulfilling other requirements for promotion as Reader and, if found suitable, could be given the designation of Reader." 4. Thereafter, they were placed to the next higher level i.e. Lecturer (Selection Grade) in pursuance of the provision of the same Notification given above. They could offer themselves for fresh assessment after obtaining Ph.D and/or fulfilling other requirements for promotion as Reader and, if found suitable, could be given the designation of Reader." 4. Thereafter, they were placed to the next higher level i.e. Lecturer (Selection Grade) in pursuance of the provision of the same Notification given above. The appellant No.1 was placed as Lecturer (Selection Grade) in the Political Science Department, under the Career Advancement Scheme in the scale of pay of Rs. 12,000-18,300/- plus usual allowance admissible under the rules w.e.f.1/6/1997, on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and in pursuance of the Executive Council Resolution No.EC/104/99/6/1/(i) dated 26/10/1999, and vide order No.F.15-63/Estt-II/86-2907, dated 29/11/1999. The appellant No. 2 was also placed as Lecturer (Selection Grade) in the Department of English under the same scheme w.e.f.11/7/1997, in the same scale of pay and allowance as given to the appellant No.1 on the recommendation of the selection Committee and with the approval of the Executive Council, vide its resolution No.EC:9:4(1) passed in its Meeting held on 30/11/2005 to 1/12/2005, and vide Order No.10-4/Estt.I/05/20513-18 dated 15/2/2006. In the same manner, the appellant No.3 was also placed at the level of Lecturer (Selection Grade) in the Department of Economics, under the same scheme w.e.f. 28/7/2003 and in the same scale and allowance as given to the other two appellants on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and with the approval of the Executive Council, vide its resolution No.EC:9:4(1) passed in its Meeting held on 30/11/2005 to 1/12/2005, and vide Order No.10-4/Estt.I/05/20519-24, dated 15/2/2006. The appellant No.4 who was a Lecturer in the Department of English was also placed at the level of Selection Grade with the same scheme and the same scale of pay and allowance as given to the other three appellants w.e.f. 6/8/1997, on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and in pursuance of the Executive Council Resolution No.EC/104/99/6/1(i), dated 26/10/1999, and vide Order No.f. 15-33/Estt-II/86-2986, dated 3/12/1999. 5. 5. The Government of India of Human Resource development, Department of Higher Education, vide its letter No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i), dated 31/12/2008, communicated to the Secretary, UGC under the subject of "Scheme of Revision of Pay of Teachers and equivalent cadre in Universities and Colleges following the revision of Pay Scales of Central Government Employees on the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission" conveyed that the designation of Readers and Lecturers (Selection Grade) shall be as follows; "(ix) Incumbent Readers and lecturers (Selection Grade) who have completed three years in the current pay scale of Rupees 12,000-18,300/- on 1.1.2006 shall be placed in the pay band of rs.37,400-67,000/- with AGP pay of rs.9000 and shall be re-designated as Associate professors." In pursuance of the above stated letter of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, the appellants were re-designated as Associate Professors since they had completed three years in the pay scale of Rs. 12,000-18,300/- as on 1/1/2006. 6. In the year 2010, the UGC in exercise of powers conferred under Clause-(e) & (g) of the sub-section (1) of Section-26 of the UGC Act, and in pursuance of the MHRD O.M.No.F.23-7/2008-IFD, dated 23/10/2008, read with Ministry of Finance (Dept. of Expenditure) O.M. No.F.1-1/2008-IC, dated 30/8/2008, and in terms of the MHRD Notification No.1-32/2006-U-II/U/I(1) issued on 31/12/2008 and in super-session of the UGC (Minimum Qualification required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations 2000, together with all amendments made therein from time to time framed a new Regulation known as the UGC (Minimum Qualification for the Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measure for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2000. The same was notified vide Notification No.F.3-1/2009, dated 28/6/2010, and the same came into force w.e.f. the date of this notification. The relevant portion i.e. Regulation shall be reproduced at the later stage of this judgment. 7. Since the appellants have completed their research and were awarded Ph.D in their respective subjects except for the appellant No.4, they were granted three non-compounded increments in their pays. The relevant portion i.e. Regulation shall be reproduced at the later stage of this judgment. 7. Since the appellants have completed their research and were awarded Ph.D in their respective subjects except for the appellant No.4, they were granted three non-compounded increments in their pays. The appellant No.1 was granted three non-compounded increments in pursuance of the resolution of the Executive Council Meeting held on 20/11/2012 which was approved by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, vide Order No.4- 3/Estt.I/05/2095-103, dated 22/4/2013, w.e.f.9/4/2012 i.e. the date on which she was awarded Ph.D degree by the North Eastern Hill University. Similarly, the appellants No. 2 and 3 were also granted three non-compoundable increments on the recommendation of the core committee meeting held on 25/7/2013 and as per the resolution of the Executive Council Meeting held on 26/7/2013, vide Order dated 16/9/2013, and dated 21/10/2013, respectively w.e.f the date they were awarded Ph.D degree i.e. on 21/11/2012 by the Mizoram University. 8. The appellant No.4 also expected to be granted three non compounded increments as granted to the other appellants as she had also acquired her Ph.D. degree on 19/1/2015 from Mizoram University, however, she was not granted as expected so, she submitted a representation on 28/1/2015 to the respondent No.2. But, she did not get any positive response so she submitted a reminder on 1/4/2016 to the respondent No.2 through proper channel, however, for reasons best known to the respondents, she was not granted the three non-compounded advance increments. In the meanwhile, the Executive Council of the University in its 42nd Meeting held on 31/7/2015 passed a resolution and subsequent there to the pay of the appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were re-fixed and re-regulated by withdrawing the 3 non-compounded increments granted to them earlier for having acquired Ph.D degree, vide order No.4-3/Estt.I/13/2679-81, dated 28/1/2016; vide order No.4-3/Estt.I/13/3913-15, dated 10/6/2016; vide order No. 4- 3/Estt.I/13/2682-84, dated 28/1/2016 respectively. However, the amounts of pay drawn as per the three non-compounded increments granted to them were made non-recoverable. Being aggrieved by the above stated orders, the appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 submitted representations requesting not to withdraw the three non- compounded increments already granted. Since their request was not entertained by the respondents, the appellants filed W.P.(C) No.203/2016 on the ground that Ph.D degree is not an essential requirement for placement at the level of Associate Professor. Being aggrieved by the above stated orders, the appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 submitted representations requesting not to withdraw the three non- compounded increments already granted. Since their request was not entertained by the respondents, the appellants filed W.P.(C) No.203/2016 on the ground that Ph.D degree is not an essential requirement for placement at the level of Associate Professor. Therefore, the impugned orders were passed against the letter and spirit of the scheme provided under clause 9:4 of the UGC Regulation UGC (Minimum Qualification for the Appointment of Teachers and other Academic staff in Universities and colleges and other Measure for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) and the impugned orders were passed due to mis-reading or mis-conception of the said Regulation and the resolution of the 42nd Meeting of the Executive Council of the University. The respondents filed a joint affidavit-in-opposition stating that if such three non-compounded increments are granted under the Career Advance Scheme to those Associate professors who acquired Ph.D degree during their service but not to those Associate Professors who enters directly to the post and for whom Ph.D degree is made essential requirement there would be a huge difference in their pay though they belong to the same pay band. Therefore, to avoid such a situation, granting of such three non- compoundable increment has to be stopped. Secondly, the UGC Regulation (Minimum Qualification for the Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measure for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulation 2010, does not specify the category or class of teaching faculty to whom increment is admissible on acquiring Ph.D degree while in service but broadly extended to teachers. As such, the petitioners (appellants in this case) cannot claim the benefit of three non-compounded increments. The respondents also stated in the affidavit that the petitioners (appellants in this case) were merely re-designated as Associate Professors under the Career Advance Scheme prior to their acquisition of Ph.D. degree as per the UGC Regulation, wherein Ph.D degree is an essential qualification. Therefore, they do not deserve or they are not entitled to three non compounded increments. The respondents also stated in the affidavit that the petitioners (appellants in this case) were merely re-designated as Associate Professors under the Career Advance Scheme prior to their acquisition of Ph.D. degree as per the UGC Regulation, wherein Ph.D degree is an essential qualification. Therefore, they do not deserve or they are not entitled to three non compounded increments. Lastly, it was also stated that the increment was withdrawn in pursuance of the resolution passed in the 42nd Executive Council Meeting held on 31/7/2015, therefore, the impugned orders were passed as per law and not due to misreading of the resolution passed by the Executive Council. 9. After considering the pleadings of the parties and considering the submissions of the respective counsels, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The relevant portion of the judgment and order are given here below; "12. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels. It is seen that the petitioners No.1,2,3 and 4 were placed respectively in the Selection Grade under career Advancement Scheme (CAS) in the scale of pay of Rs. 12,000-420-18,300/- plus usual allowances admissible under the Rules to the Central Government Employees w.e.f. 01.06.1997, 11.07.1997, 28.07.2003 and 06.08.1997 respectively on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the respective Executive Council Resolution. Thereafter, under the Scheme of Revision of Pay of Teachers and Equivalent Cadre in University and colleges following revision of pay scale of Central Government on the recommendation of the 6th Central Government Pay Commission vide No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(ii) dated 31.12.2008 they were placed in the Pay Band of Rs. 37,400-67,000/- with AGP of Rs. 9000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and they were re-designated as Associate Professors inasmuch as they were placed as Lecturers (Selection Grade) in the Pay SCALE of Rs. 12,000-18,300/- and completed 3 years in the said Pay SCALE as on 01.01.2006. On the strength of the Appendix-I dated 31.12.2008 of the 2010 Regulation vide Clause I(iii), the pay of Teachers and equivalent positions in Universities and Colleges were fixed according to their designations in two Pay Bands of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- and Rs. 37,400-67,000/- with appropriate "Academic Grade Pay" (AGP). Each Pay Band shall have different stages of AGP which shall ensure the teachers and other equivalent cadres covered under the scheme subject to other conditions of eligibility being satisfied to have multiple opportunities for upward movement during their career. 15,600-39,100/- and Rs. 37,400-67,000/- with appropriate "Academic Grade Pay" (AGP). Each Pay Band shall have different stages of AGP which shall ensure the teachers and other equivalent cadres covered under the scheme subject to other conditions of eligibility being satisfied to have multiple opportunities for upward movement during their career. Thus, the present petitioners were holding Pay Band of Associate Professor w.e.f 01.01.2006 by virtue of the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission. The petitioner No.1 was awarded with the Ph.D degree on 06.12.2012, the petitioner No.2 on 21.11.2012, the petitioner No.3 on 21.11.2012 and the petitioner No.4 on 10.04.2015. On the said dates, the petitioners were holding posts of Associate Professors. 13. In 2010 Regulation, Clause 9.4(i) stipulates that teachers who completed their Ph.D degree while in service shall be entitled to three non-compounded increments. The petitioners No. 1,2 and 3 were granted three non-compounded increments respectively on 22.04.2013, 16.09.2013 and 21.11.2013. The petitioner No.4 applied for the grant of three non-compounded increments on acquiring Ph.D degree since 28.1.2015 and the same was not granted to her. Thereafter, the respondent University was faced with a doubt with regard to the recommendation of a Core Committee which was subsequently approved by the 35th Executive Council Meeting. The Core Committee recommended that a teacher who is enrolled for Ph.D and is awarded Doctorate degree in course of work shall affect the benefit of three non-compounded increments on the face of the resolution No.EC:16:4(II) (III) of the 16th Executive Council meeting held on 23.7.2007 resolving that Ph.D increments are not allowed for Reader/Professor where Ph.D degree is an essential qualification. Accordingly, a clarification was sought for and in the 42nd Executive Council Meeting of the respondent No.1 held on 31.7.2015 vide resolution No. EC:42:5(14) resolved as follows:- "The Council considered the matter and reiterated its earlier decision that as per the UGC norms, those teaching posts where Ph.D degree is considered essential requirement, no increment will be admissible even if the degree is awarded in-service. However, Ph.D related increments are admissible for only those teaching posts, where holding Ph.D degree is not considered as the minimum essential qualification. In the light of this, if any increments were granted by the university to those teachers for whom Ph.D degree is an essential requirements, it must be stopped forthwith, though the amount already paid as increments, if any, may not be recoverable". In the light of this, if any increments were granted by the university to those teachers for whom Ph.D degree is an essential requirements, it must be stopped forthwith, though the amount already paid as increments, if any, may not be recoverable". On the basis of the said resolution the respondent No.1 withdrew the three non-compounded increments granted for acquiring Ph.D degree to the said petitioners No.1, 2 and 3. 14. The submission of Mr. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel that the respondent authority misinterpreted/misconstrued the said resolution of the 42nd Executive Council Meeting held on 31.7.2015 and the action against the present petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 are illegal cannot be accepted even if their entry to the post of Associate Professor are from the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade). Appendix-I of the scheme of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres of Universities and Colleges following the revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on the recommendation of 6th Central Pay Commission issued by the Human Resources Development Department of Higher Education dated 31.12.2008 in clause 2(a)(ix) clearly shows that the incumbent in the post of Readers and Lecturers (Selection Grade) were given common pay band who have completed three years in the pay scale of Rs. 12,000-18,3000/- on 1.1.2006 and re-designated as Associate Professor. The petitioners have been holding the post of Associate Professor w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as mentioned hereinabove and the resolution of the 42nd Executive Council Meeting is specific to the effect that " as per UGC norms those teaching posts where Ph.D Degree is considered essential requirement .." and as per Clause 3.8.0 of the UGC Regulation mandates that Ph.D degree is mandatory for the post of Associate Professor for direct recruits. 15. The 2010 Regulation in its Appendix III Table III hereinabove specifically stipulates that the entry to the stage of Associate Professor of an incumbent must complete the stages 1,2 and 3 out of which stage 1 is mandatory that an Assistant Professor shall have to render four years of service with Ph.D degree leaving aside the criteria applicable to the professional course. This clearly indicates that any person serving as Assistant professor to become eligible to the post of Associate Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) must possess the Ph.D. degree. This clearly indicates that any person serving as Assistant professor to become eligible to the post of Associate Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) must possess the Ph.D. degree. The petitioners were rightly or wrongly given the benefits under the CAS that too while holding the posts of Associate Professor the post which requires a Ph.D degree as one of the criteria. When the criteria itself signifies that Ph.D degree is mandatory for an incumbent to hold the post of Associate Professor, which is stipulated in Clause 3.8.0 of UGC Regulation, the decision of the respondent University withdrawing the benefits cannot be termed to be illegal. On the other hand for the above reasoning the petitioner No.4 is also not entitled for the benefit of three non- compounded increments for completion of her Ph.D degree in service. In addition to that if the petitioners are permitted to enjoy the said benefits then it would amount to creation of another pay band for the post of Associate Professor for direct entry and for persons like petitioners. This will be against the intent and purpose of 2010 Regulation spelling out that pay of teachers and equivalent positions in Universities and Colleges shall be fixed according to their designations in two pay bands only. For the said reasons, I find that there is no illegality in withdrawing the benefits of the petitioners No.1,2 and 3 and the petitioner No.4 is also not entitled for the benefit of non-compounded increments. 16. The other limb of the submission of Mr. Malhotra that without challenging the Resolution No.EC:42:5(4) of the 42nd Executive Council Meeting held on 31.7.2015, this writ petition along with relief sought for is not maintainable, has its force. It is very much clear and apparent 17 that the consequent action of withdrawing three non- compounded increments of the petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 flows out of the resolution of the 42nd Executive Council Meeting of the respondents held on 31.7.2015. Until and unless the said resolution is set aside the consequential action will always remain flowing out of the resolution. The impugned orders are also specific to show that the same are consequential orders flowing out from the resolution. 17. In (2010) 1 SCC 756 the Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the maintainability of an appeal held as follows: "22. Until and unless the said resolution is set aside the consequential action will always remain flowing out of the resolution. The impugned orders are also specific to show that the same are consequential orders flowing out from the resolution. 17. In (2010) 1 SCC 756 the Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the maintainability of an appeal held as follows: "22. It is a settled legal proposition that challenge to consequential order without challenging the basic order/statutory provision on the basis of which the order has been passed cannot be entertained. Therefore, it is a legal obligation on the part of the party to challenge the basic order and only if the same is found to be wrong, consequential order may be examined (vide P. Chitharanja Menon Vs. ABalakrishnan, H.V. Pardasani V. Union of India and Govt. of Maharashtra v. Deokar's Distillery)" 18. Similarly in (2020) 1 SCC 417 the Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding the promotion made by two different DPC's by way of which promotions were made with retrospective effect on different dates notionally, without challenging the said decision of the DPC the aggrieved persons challenged the seniority on the basis of the said promotion, held that the seniority which is a consequential to the promotion could not be challenged without challenging the promotion and further held that challenging the consequential order without challenging the basic order is not permissible .Herein also though Mr. Lalramzauva learned Senior Counsel wanted to project his case with respect to misconstruction of the resolution but the action initiated by the respondent University is arising out of as the consequences of the said resolution. From that point of view also the writ petition is also not maintainable. 19. Be that as it may the petitioners are not entitled to the relief’s inasmuch as there is no misconstruction by the respondent University of the Resolution No. EC:42:5(14) of the 42nd Executive Council Meeting held on 31.7.2015. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed". 10. From that point of view also the writ petition is also not maintainable. 19. Be that as it may the petitioners are not entitled to the relief’s inasmuch as there is no misconstruction by the respondent University of the Resolution No. EC:42:5(14) of the 42nd Executive Council Meeting held on 31.7.2015. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed". 10. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants have filed the present appeal assailing the same on the following ground (grounds given by the appellants are reproduced here verbatim); GROUNDS (i) For that the Hon'ble Single Judge had erred in law and in fact in holding that for up-gradation/placement to the post of Associate Professor through Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) acquisition of the degree of Ph.D is an essential requirement though no such requirement has been made under the UGC Regulations at any point of time except for direct recruitment to the said posts as provided under 3.8.0 of the UGC Regulation, 2010. And as such the impugned Judgment and Order dt.23.3.2018 is liable to be set aside and quashed. (ii) For that the Hon'ble Single Judge was confused in respect of the mode of recruitment to the said post of Associate Professor by direct recruitment with that of up-gradation/placement under CAS. While it is clearly provided in the UGC Regulations, 2010 dt.28.6.2010 (Annexure 24 to the Writ Petition) that for promotion of Assistant Professor/equivalent cadres from Stage 3 to Associate Professor (stage 4) under CAS the service requirement is that the Assistant Professor has to have three years of completed service in Stage 3. It may also be stated that as per the letter no.1-32/2006-U.ii/U.I(i) dt.31.12.2008 (Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition). It has been clearly provided under Clause 2(xii) & (xiii) of the Scheme of Revision of Pay of teachers, etc as follows:- "(xii) Assistant Professors completing three years of teaching in the AGP of Rs. 8,000 shall be eligible, subject to other conditions, that may be prescribed by the UGC and the university, to move to the Pay Band of Rs. 37,400-Rs,67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000 and to be designated as Associate Professors." (xiii) Associate Professor completing three years of service in the AGP of Rs. 8,000 shall be eligible, subject to other conditions, that may be prescribed by the UGC and the university, to move to the Pay Band of Rs. 37,400-Rs,67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000 and to be designated as Associate Professors." (xiii) Associate Professor completing three years of service in the AGP of Rs. 9000 and possessing a Ph.D Degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor, subject to other conditions of academic performance as laid down by the UGC and if any by the university. No teacher other than those with a Ph.D shall be promoted, appointed or designated as Professor, The Pay Band for the post of Professors shall be Rs. 37,400 Rs. 67,000 with AGP of Rs. 10,000." The above quoted provisions of the Schemes would clearly indicate that while acquisition of the degree of Ph.D is not required for up-gradation/placement as Associate Professor after completing the required length of service as Assistant Professor, those Associate Professors who do not possess the degree of Ph.D are not eligible for promotion/being designated as Professor. The Hon'ble Single Judge had failed to appreciate the said provision of law which had resulted in holding that the degree of Ph.D is required for up-gradation/placement to the post of Associate Professor under CAS, and as such the impugned Judgment and Order dt.23.3.2018 is liable to be set aside and quashed. (iii) For that though the E.C. Resolution No.EC:42:5(14): dt.31.7.2015 had clearly mentioned that as per UGC norms, "those teaching posts where Ph.D degree is considered essential requirement, no increment will be admissible even if the degree is awarded in-service. However, Ph.D related increments are admissible for only those teaching post, where holding Ph.D degree is not considered as the minimum essential qualification" while considering the provision of clause 9.4(i) of the UGC Regulations, 2010 (Annexure 7 to the Writ Petition), the Hon'ble Single Judge had wrongly opined that the writ petitioners are not eligible to enjoy the Ph.D related increments as, according to the Hon'ble Single Judge, their acquisition of Ph.D. degree was/were only for making them eligible for placement/up-gradation to the post of Associate professor. And as such the impugned Judgment and Order dt.23.3.2018 is liable to be set aside and quashed. And as such the impugned Judgment and Order dt.23.3.2018 is liable to be set aside and quashed. (iv) For that for holding that the connected Writ Petition filed by the Appellants/Writ Petitioners was not maintainable, the Hon'ble Single Judge had relied upon the law laid down by the Apex Court as reported in (Educanti Kistamma (dead) through LRS and Others Vs. S. Venkatareddy (DEAD) through LRS and Others, (2010) 1 SCC 756 ) to the effect that challenge to consequential order without challenging the basic Order cannot be entertained. In this connection, it is humbly submitted that the E.C. Resolution dt.31.7.2015 was not required to be challenged as the said resolution/decision had in no way debarred the Writ petitioners from getting the benefit of three non-compounded increments. However, since the Respondents No. 2 and 3 had illegally acted in withdrawing the said benefits already given to the Writ petitioners No.1,2 and 3 by misreading/misinterpreting the said resolution dt.31.7.2015, the Writ Petitioners have challenged the impugned Orders, withdrawing the Ph.D. related benefits. Accordingly, it was not necessary for the Writ Petitioners to make any challenge to the said E.C. resolution dt.31/7/2015. Consequently, the impugned Judgment & Order is liable to be set aside and quashed. (v) For that though there are as many as five Associate Professors having no Ph.D degree even in the Pachhunga University College and a number of Associate Professors under Govt. Colleges of Mizoram, and while even those Associate Professors under the State Government of Mizoram working in different Govt. Colleges used to be given the Ph.D related increments on their acquisition of Ph.D degree under the same provision of law, it is highly unreasonable or irrational that the Writ Petitioners would be debarred from getting the same benefit due to wrong interpretation or misreading of the related provisions of law and the connected E.C. resolution dt.31.7.2015 by the impugned Judgment & Order dt.23.3.2018. (vi) For that in any view of the matter, the Impugned Judgment & Order dt.23.3.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 203/2016 (Aizawl Bench) by the Hon'ble Single Judge suffers from patent illegality and as such the same needs to be set aside and quashed." 11. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that for promotion or being placed on the level of Associate Professor the degree of Ph.D is not required under the UGC Regulation 2010. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that for promotion or being placed on the level of Associate Professor the degree of Ph.D is not required under the UGC Regulation 2010. It is only for direct entry to that level that degree of Ph.D is required, therefore, the learned Single Judge had erred in assuming that the degree of Ph.D is an essential qualification for entry into the level of Associate Professor from the lower level. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that granting of three non-compounded increment to those who acquired Ph.D degree while in service is an incentive to those who are already in the teaching zone to promote higher standard of teaching and efficiency therefore, to deny such benefit would be against the very letter and spirit of the UGC Regulation 2010, particularly Clause-9:4 (i) and (ii) of the same. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondents by which three non compounded increment were granted to the three appellants were withdrawn based on the assumption that Ph.D degree is an essential qualification for being placed to the level of Associate Professor. Since, there is nothing in the Regulation which would show the possession of Ph.D degree is essential for being placed at the level of Associate Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme, the orders are baseless and they have no leg to stand as such, they have to be quashed and set aside. The learned Senior counsel referred to Appendix-3 Table-3 of the UGC Regulation 2010, in support of his submission. The same shall be reproduced hereafter where the issue is being discussed. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that Ph.D degree is required only for direct entry to the post of Associate Professor. In support of his submission, he referred to refer to Clause-3:8.0 of the UGC Regulation 2010. The learned Senior counsel after referring to the above stated provisions of the Regulations submitted that this shows that Ph.D is mandatory qualification only for candidates to be appointed through direct recruitment and not through CAS. 12. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there cannot be two different pay scales for those who belong to the same pay band. 12. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there cannot be two different pay scales for those who belong to the same pay band. Therefore, the Associate Professor who are promoted through the CAS cannot be given three advance increment which will result into giving two different pay scales to people who belong to the same pay band. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondents wherein or whereby the three non compounded increments were granted to the appellants No. 1 to 3 were withdrawn were issued in pursuance of the resolution of the 42nd Executive Council of the University held on 31/7/2015. Therefore, the appellants who have challenged the same impugned orders which were consequential cannot be set aside and quashed. The learned counsel reiterated his submission as recorded in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 13. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after having perused all the relevant documents we are of the view that only the following issues need to be decided for determination of the dispute in this case. (i) The first is whether Ph.D. degree is an essential qualification for being placed or promoted to the post of Associate Professor or Selection Grade/Reader from the lower level of Assistant Professor. And, whether the granting of advance increments to those who possess Ph.D degree is reasonable and just as that may lead to having two pay scales in the same pay band i.e. one for promotes with Ph.D degree and one for direct recruites. (ii) Whether the impugned order dated 28/1/2016, and dated 10/6/2016, passed by the respondents wherein or whereby the three non compounded increments granted to the three appellants can be quashed and set aside without challenging the Resolution No. EC:42:5(14) of the Executive Council of the Mizoram University passed in the 42nd Meeting held on 31/7/2015. 14. For deciding the first issue, it would be appropriate to reproduced here the relevant portion of the UCG Regulation (Minimum Qualification for the Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and colleges and other Measure for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulation 2010, which was notified, vide notification No.F.3- 1/2009, dated 28/6/2010. "APPENDIX-III-TABLE:III MINIMUM ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROMOTION OF TEACHERS IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES. "APPENDIX-III-TABLE:III MINIMUM ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROMOTION OF TEACHERS IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES. Sl No. Promotion of teachers through CAS Service requirement Minimum Academic Performance Requirements and Screening/Selection Criteria 1. Assistant Professor/equivalent cadres from Stage 1 to Stage 2 Assistant Professor in Stage 1 and completed four years of service with Ph.D. or five years of service who are with M.Phil/PG Degree in professional courses such as LLM, M.Tech, M.V.WSc., M.D., or six years of service who are without Ph.D/M. Phil/ PG Degree in professional Courses (i) Minimum API scores using PBAS scoring proforma developed by the concerned university as per the norms provided in Table II (A)/II (B) of Appendix III. (II) One Orientation and one Refresher /Research Methodology Course of 2/3 weeks duration. (iii) Screening cum verification process for recommending promotion 2. Assistant Professor/equivalent cadres from Stage 2 to Stage 3 Assistant Professor with completed service of five years in Stage 2. (i) Minimum API scores using PBAS scoring proforma developed by the concerned university as per the norms provided in Table II (A)/II (B) of Appendix III. (II) One course/programme from among the categories of refresher courses, methodology workshops, Training, Teaching-Learning-Evaluation Technology Programmes, Soft Skills development Programmes and Faculty Development Programmes of 2 /3 weeks duration. (iii) Screening cum verification process for recommending promotion 3. Assistant Professor (Stage 3) to Associate Professor (Stage 4) Assistant Professors with three years of completed service in Stage 3. (i) Minimum API Minimum API scores using PBAS scoring proforma developed by the concerned university as per the norms provided in Table II (A)/II (B) of Appendix III. (ii) At least three publications in the entire period as Assistant Professor (twelve years). However, in the case of Colleges teachers, an exemption of one publication will be given to M.Phil holders and an exemption of two publications will be given to Ph. D. holders. (iii) One course/ programme from among the categories of methodology workshops, Training, Teaching- Learning-Evaluation Technology Programmes, Soft, Skills development Programmes and Faculty Development Programmes of minimum one week duration. (iv) A selection committee process as stipulated in this regulation and in Tables II (A) and II (B) of Appendix III. 4. Associate Professor (Stage 4) Professor/equivalent cadres (Stage 5) Associate Professor with three years of completed service in Stage 4. (iv) A selection committee process as stipulated in this regulation and in Tables II (A) and II (B) of Appendix III. 4. Associate Professor (Stage 4) Professor/equivalent cadres (Stage 5) Associate Professor with three years of completed service in Stage 4. (i) Minimum yearly/cumulative API scores using PBAS scoring proforma developed by the concerned university as per the norms provided in Table II (A)/II (B) of Appendix III. Teachers may combine two assessment periods (in Stages 2 and 3) to achieve minimum API Scores, if required. (ii) A minimum of five publications since the period that the teacher is placed in Stage-3. (iii) A Selection Committee process as stipulated in this regulation and in Tables II (A) and II (b) of Appendix III. 5. Professor (Stage 5) to Professor (Stage 6) Professor with ten years of completed service (universities only) (I) Minimum yearly/cumulative API scores using PBAS scoring proforma developed by the concerned university as per the norms provided in Table II (A)/II (B) of Appendix III. (II) Additional credentials are to be evidenced by (a) post-doctoral research outputs of high standard; (b) awards/ honours/recognitions/ patents and IPR on products and processes developed/technology transfer achieved; and (c) Additional research degrees like D.Sc., D. Litt., LL.B., etc. (ii) A review process by an Expert Committee as stipulated in this regulation and in Tables II (A) and II (b) of Appendix III. For teachers seeking promotion under CAS to Associate Professor for those who on the date of this notification are Assistant Professors in Stage 2, the requirement of publications may be adjusted pro rata. For all others who enter Stage 2, subsequent to this notification, the requirement of three publications, as defined in these regulations will be applicable. Note: For Universities/Colleges for which Sixth PRC Awards (Vide Appendix 2) are applicable, Stages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 correspond to scales with AGP of Rs. 6000, 7000, 8000, 9000, 10000 and 12000 respectively". 15. Note: For Universities/Colleges for which Sixth PRC Awards (Vide Appendix 2) are applicable, Stages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 correspond to scales with AGP of Rs. 6000, 7000, 8000, 9000, 10000 and 12000 respectively". 15. On careful reading of the above provisions, it appears to us that for an Assistant Professor who is in the first stage to be placed to the next higher level of Assistant Professor (Stage-II) he or she must have completed 4 years of service if he or she is Ph.D Degree holder or must have completed 5 years of service if he or she has only M.Phil or other P.G. degree in professional courses such as, LLM, M.Tch., M.V.Sc, M.D or must have completed 6 years of service if he or she does not have any of the above i.e. Ph. D Degree, M.Phil and P.G. Degree in professional courses. And, For an Assistant Professor who is in the Stage-II to be promoted to the next higher level i.e. Stage-III or Associate Professor one must have completed 5 years of service in Stage-II. And, For an Associate Professor (Stage-III) to be promoted to the next higher level i.e. Associate Professor (Stage-IV) one must have completed 3 years of service in that stage. And, To be promoted to the next higher level i.e. Professor or equivalent cadre (Stage-V) Professor at Stage-IV must have completed 3 years of service in that stage. From the above stated requirements for being promoted from Assistant Professor (Stage-I) to Associate Professor (Stage-III), it can be seen that the degree of Ph.D, MiPhil or P.G. Degree in professional courses are not the essential qualifications. At Sl. No. 1 of the Appendix-III Table-III, the essential requirement for being promoted to the Stage-II as already stated above is not the academic degree like Ph.D, M.Phil or P.G. degree in professional courses but the years of service one must have put in at the entry level and at the next higher stages which are the basic requirement. By mere perusal of the requirement given under the heading "service requirement" at Column-3 of the Table would make it clear. By mere perusal of the requirement given under the heading "service requirement" at Column-3 of the Table would make it clear. At the cost of repeatation but for the sake of more clearity, the requirement for being promoted as given at Clause-III of the Table has to be read as for promotion to Stage-II a person at Stage-I must have completed 4 years of service at that stage if he or she has Ph.D degree but if one has only M.Phil or P.G. degree in professional courses such as LLM/M.Tech/M.V.Sc/M.D he or she should have 5 years of service at that stage. However, for those who do not have any of the above they should have had at least 6 years of service. The word 'or' used in between every category in the sentence given under the heading "service requirement" makes it amply clear that having Ph.D degree or M.Phil. or P.G. degree gives one only the advantage of shorter duration of service for promotion to the next higher post. But the same are not essential qualifications. Further, by mere perusal of the sentence at 3rd column of Sl. No. 2 and SL. No. 3 of the Table also makes it clear that for being promoted to higher post from Stage-II onwards also the requirement for promotion is only the years of service and not Ph. D degree or M.Phil. or P.G. degree which is essential. However, for direct recruitment to Associate Professor i.e. Stage-III in the higher level Regulation 3.8.0 provides as follows; "Ph.D degree shall be mandatory qualification for all candidates to be appointed as Associate Professor through direct recruitment". Reading together of the above regulation and the contents of the Table-III of the Appendix-III, it is clear that for entry to the level of Associate Professor there are two ways, they are; (i) by promotion and, (ii) by direct recruitment. And, for those who has to enter by promotion they must have worked for the length of years at different stages of service depending on the degree they possess but for direct recruitment one must have posses Ph.D degree. Now coming to the second part of the first issue, we deem it necessary to reproduce the scheme under which advance increments has been provided, therefore, the same is given here below; "9.0. INCENTIVE FOR Ph.D/M/Phil. AND OTHER HIGHER QUALIFICATION TO TAKE EFFECT FROM 01-09-2008. Now coming to the second part of the first issue, we deem it necessary to reproduce the scheme under which advance increments has been provided, therefore, the same is given here below; "9.0. INCENTIVE FOR Ph.D/M/Phil. AND OTHER HIGHER QUALIFICATION TO TAKE EFFECT FROM 01-09-2008. 9.1 Five non-compounded advance increments shall be admissible at the entry level of recruitment as Assistant professor to persons possessing the degree of Ph.D awarded in a relevant discipline by the University following the process of admission, registration, course work and external evaluation as prescribed by the UGC. 9.2. M.Phil. degree holders at the time of recruitment to the post of Assistant professor shall be entitled to 2 non-compounded advance increments. 9.3. Those possessing Post-Graduate degree in the professional course such as LL.M/M/Tech/M/Arch/M.E/M.V.Sc/M.D etc recognised by the relevant statutory body/council, shall also be entitled to 2 non- compounded advance increments at the entry level. 9.4. (i) Teachers who complete their Ph.D Degree while in service shall be entitled to 3 non-compounded increments if such Ph.D is in relevant discipline of the discipline of employment and has been awarded by a university complying with the process prescribed by the UGC for enrolment, course work, evaluation, etc. (ii) However, teachers in service who have already been awarded Ph.D by the time of coming into force of these regulations or having been enrolled for Ph.D have already undergone course-work as well as evaluation, if any, and only Notification in regard to the award of Ph.D is awaited, shall also be entitled to the award of 3 non-compounded increments even if the university awarding such Ph.D has not yet been notified by the UGC as having complied with the process prescribed by the Commission. 9.5 In respect of every other case, a teacher who is already enrolled for Ph.D shall avail the benefit of 3 non-compounded increments only if the university awarding the Ph.D has been notified by the UGC to have complied with the process" We have carefully read the above provisions and we are of the view that by this provisions what is intended is to provide incentive to the teaching faculty of the Colleges and University and to those who are intending to join the teaching profession to go for higher studies and obtain higher degrees so as to equip them-self better to impart higher standard of education to students. Therefore, even if such incentive results into having two pay scales in the same pay band it would just and reasonable because it is based on classification and for promoting higher standard of education. In fact Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondents though submitted that if such incentive is implemented it would lead to existence of two pay scales under the same pay band but the learned counsel did not show by facts as to how there would be two pay scales under the same pay band. 16. Having decided the first issue, we shall now take up the second issues. As already recorded at paragraph-12 of this judgment, it has been strongly contended by Mr. A.R. Malhotra that since the three impugned orders i.e. order dated 28/01/2016, 10/06/2016 and 28/01/2016, by which non compoundable increments were granted to the appellants No. 1, 2 & 3 have been withdrawn were issued in pursuance to the Resolution of the 42nd Executive Council Meeting of the University held on 31/07/2015, therefore, unless that resolution is challenged and the same is quashed and set aside, the three impugned orders cannot be quashed and set aside. Before, we go any further we deem it appropriate to reproduce the Resolution of the 42nd Executive Council Meeting of the University held on 31/07/2015 as follows; "Resolution No.EC:42:5(14) "The Council considered the matter and reiterated its earlier decision that as per the UGC norms, those teaching posts where Ph.D degree is considered essential requirement, no increment will be admissible even if the degree is awarded in-service. However, Ph.D related increments are admissible for only those teaching posts, where holding Ph.D degree is not considered as the minimum essential qualification. In the light of this, if any increments were granted by the university to those teachers for whom Ph.D degree is an essential requirements, it must be stopped forthwith, though the amount already paid as increments, if any, may not be recoverable." On careful reading of the resolution what one can understand from there is that granting of such advance increments to persons who have Ph.D degree is allowed only to those teaching staffs who entered into the post for which Ph.D degree is not a minimum essential qualification. As already discussed in the first issue for entry into the post of Associate Professor through promotion, Ph.D degree is not an essential qualification but, it is essential qualification only for direct recruitment. The appellants No. 1, 2 & 3 belongs to promotee category, therefore, they do not come under the prohibitive side of the resolution. In other words, the case of the appellants has nothing to do with the resolution of the 42nd Executive Council Meeting of the University. As such, though we agree with the proposition of law submitted by Mr. A.R. Malhotra we must say that the same is not applicable in this case. The contents of the three impugned orders clearly shows that benefits or incentive granted to the three appellants were withdrawn because of the resolution of the Executive Council passed in 42nd Meeting reproduced in the preceding paragraph. For better appreciation, the contents of the three impugned orders are reproduced here below; "MIZORAM UNVERSITY AIZAWL : MIZORAM Post Box No. 190 Gram : MZU Phone No. 0389-2330654 Fax : 0389-2330834 No. 4-3/Estt-1/13/2679-81 Dated Aizawl, the 28th Jan. 2016. ORDER As per resolution of the 42nd Executive Council Meeting held on 31.07.2015 vide resolution No.EC:42:5(14) the pay of Dr. Lalrammawii, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Pachhunga University College is re-fixed and regulated withdrawing the three non-compounded increments granted for acquiring Ph.D. on 09.04.2012 as shown below 01.07.2011 : Rs. 50,600+ 9,000 =Rs. 59,600/- 01.07.2012 : Rs. 52,390+ 9,000 =Rs. 61,390/- 01.07.2013 : Rs. 54,240+ 9,000 =Rs. 63,240/- 01.07.2014 : Rs. 56,140+ 9,000 =Rs. 65,140/- 01.07.2015 : Rs. 56,100+ 9,000 =Rs. 67,100/- D.N.I : 01.07.2016 This order supersedes this office pay fixation order No. 4-3/Est.1/05/7368- 70, dt. 17.09.2013. Recovery of excess drawn may not be affected in terms of Supreme Court Ruling 3351-3354 of 2003 and 521 of 1994 issued vide MZU office order No. 4- 3/Estt.1/13/12873-'79, dated 11.11.2013. Sd/- (Zalremmawia Pachuau) Deputy Registrar (Admn.I)" "MIZORAM UNVERSITY AIZAWL -796004 A Central University Establishment by Parliament Act No.8 of 2000(25.4.2005) NAAC Accredited Grade 'A' University No. 4-3/Estt-1/13/3913-45 Dated Aizawl, the 10th Jun. 2016. ORDER As per resolution of the 42nd Executive Council Meeting held on 31.07.2015 vide resolution No.EC:42:5(14) the pay of Dr. Rualzakhumi, Associate Professor, Department of English, Pachhunga University College is re-fixed and regulated withdrawing the three non-compounded increments granted for acquiring Ph.D. on 21.11.2012 as shown below 01.07.2012 : Rs. 46,440+ 9,000 =Rs. 2016. ORDER As per resolution of the 42nd Executive Council Meeting held on 31.07.2015 vide resolution No.EC:42:5(14) the pay of Dr. Rualzakhumi, Associate Professor, Department of English, Pachhunga University College is re-fixed and regulated withdrawing the three non-compounded increments granted for acquiring Ph.D. on 21.11.2012 as shown below 01.07.2012 : Rs. 46,440+ 9,000 =Rs. 55,440/ 01.07.2013 : Rs. 48,110+ 9,000 =Rs. 57,110/- 01.07.2014 : Rs. 49,830+ 9,000 =Rs. 58,830/- 01.07.2015 : Rs. 51,600+ 9,000 =Rs. 60,600/- D.N.I : 01.07.2016 This order supersedes this office pay fixation order No. 4-3/Est.1/05/7285- 87, dt. 16.09.2013. Recovery of excess drawn may not be affected in terms of Supreme Court Ruling 3351-3354 of 2003 and 521 of 1994 issued vide MZU office order No. 4- 3/Estt.1/13/12873-'79, dated 11.11.2013. Sd/- (Zalremmawia Pachuau) Deputy Registrar (Admn.I)" "MIZORAM UNVERSITY AIZAWL : MIZORAM Post Box No. 190 Gram : MZU Phone No. 0389-2330654 Fax : 0389-2330834 No. 4-3/Estt-1/13/2682-84 Dated Aizawl, the 28 th Jan. 2016. ORDER As per resolution of the 42nd Executive Council Meeting held on 31.07.2015 vide resolution No.EC:42:5(14) the pay of Dr. Margaret Z.Khiangte, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Pachhunga University College is re-fixed and regulated withdrawing the three non-compounded increments granted for acquiring Ph.D. on 23.08.2013 as shown below 01.07.2012 : Rs. 46,440+ 9,000 =Rs. 55,440/ 01.07.2013 : Rs. 48,110+ 9,000 =Rs. 57,110/- 01.07.2014 : Rs. 49,830+ 9,000 =Rs. 58,830/- 01.07.2015 : Rs. 51,600+ 9,000 =Rs. 60,600/- D.N.I : 01.07.2016 This order supersedes this office pay fixation order No. 4-3/Est.1/05/10684- 86, dt. 21.10.2013. Recovery of excess drawn may not be affected in terms of Supreme Court Ruling 3351-3354 of 2003 and 521 of 1994 issued vide MZU office order No. 4- 3/Estt.1/13/12873-79, dated 11.11.2013. Sd/- (Zalremmawia Pachuau) Deputy Registrar (Admn.I)" As already discussed, the case of the appellants No. 1, 2 & 3 does not come under the prohibitive side of the resolution because for the post to which they were promoted, Ph.D degree is not the essential qualification for promotees. In view of the discussions and conclusions drawn as above, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge requires to be interfered with. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the three impugned orders dated 28/01/2016, 10/06/2016 & 28/01/2016. Consequently, we direct that the appellant No.4 be also granted the same benefit as granted to the appellants No. 1, 2 & 3. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the three impugned orders dated 28/01/2016, 10/06/2016 & 28/01/2016. Consequently, we direct that the appellant No.4 be also granted the same benefit as granted to the appellants No. 1, 2 & 3. With this, the writ appeal is disposed of.