IMPORTANT POINT
The post of Senior Pilot Instructor in the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur is classified as a technical post and not as an academic post.

Headnote:Institute of Technology Act, 1961 —Sections 13, 26, 27—Post of Pilot Instructor (Glider)—Age of superannuation—Whether post of Senior Pilot Instructor was an academic post or a technical post—1st respondent was appointed as a Senior Pilot Instructor (Glider) in terms of an offer of appointment stating that the age of superannuation would be 60 years—According to appellant, post of Senior Pilot Instructor was classified as technical—1st respondent’s representation for upgradation of his scale of pay from 14,300-400-18,300 to Rs. 16,400-450-20,000 was approved by the Board having regard to the unique post held by him—Representation made asserting that the post of Senior Pilot Instructor held by him was an academic post, therefore, his age superannuation should be treated as 62 years—Whether High Court was justified in allowing respondent’s claim—(No).
Held : The classification in terms of the provisions of the Act was required to be done in terms of the provisions of the Statutes. The Selection Committee constituted under Statute 12(3)(e) for appointing the appellant and other persons in the same department would clearly go to show that the First Respondent was covered under the category of technical staff. He furthermore, according to the appellant, was appointed mainly in the Gliding and Soaring Centre at IIT, Kanpur, to provide an informal recreational avenue to the members of the Gliding and Soaring Centre in adventure sports and other aviation sports in Aero-modeling club.(Para 32)
The High Court failed to consider the specific stand taken by the appellant in this behalf. The High Court has further failed to notice that the post of Instructor specified in Statute 11 is compared to the post of Assistant Lecturer, whereas the post of Senior Pilot Instructor is comparable to the post of Senior Physical Instructor as mentioned in Statute 11(b). In terms of Statute 4(2)(a) it was within the exclusive domain of the Senate of IIT to frame and revise curricula and syllabi for the courses of studies for the various departments of the Institute. Thus, in this behalf the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that the gliding cannot be separated or kept aloof from the academic course or learning under Aerospace Engineering may not be entirely correct. The High Court furthermore failed to notice that in terms of Resolution dated 23/24.05.1988, the post of Senior Pilot Instructor was classified as a technical post.(Para 33)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. The First Respondent was appointed as a Junior Pilot Instructor (Glider) pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 1979 being Advertisement No.14/1979. The Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Institute’) is a body corporate in terms of the provisions of the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It is an institute of national importance. It has its own Board of Directors. Its functions are laid down in Section 13 of the Act. The Board of Governors is responsible for general superintendence, directions and control of the affairs of the Institute. It is also entitled to take decisions on questions of policy relating to administration and working of the Institute. Section 27 of the Act contemplates framing of statutes providing for the matters enumerated in Section 26 thereof, providing for classification, method of employment and determination of the terms and conditions of service of teachers and other staff of the Institute. In terms of Statute 11 of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur Statutes (for short, ‘the Statutes’), members of the staff are classified in three categories, namely, Academic, Technical and Administrative.

3. The First Respondent herein applied for his appointment as Junior Pilot Instructor in response to the advertisement No.14/1979 and was called for an interview before a Selection Committee constituted under Statute 12(3)(e) of the Statutes. He was appointed on contract basis. It is not in dispute that later on also an advertisement was issued for the post of Junior Pilot Instructor on regular basis wherefor also the First Respondent applied for and was selected by a Selection Committee constituted under Statute 2(3)(e) of the Statute. He later on was appointed to the post of Senior Pilot Instructor by a Selection Committee similarly constituted. While the First Respondent was appointed as a Senior Pilot Instructor (Glider) in terms of an offer of appointment made on 24.06.1986, it was, inter alia, stated that the age of superannuation would be 60 years. According to the appellant, the post of Senior Pilot Instructor was classified as technical. Sl. Nos.18, 19 and 20 of the Recruitment Qualification for Group-A Officers (Academic, Administrative and Technical) of the Institute read as under:

Sl. Designation and Qualifications ClassificationSelection No. Pay ScaleCommittee as per Statute

18Chief Pilot Instructor AppropriateTechnical12(3)(e)(Rs. 1500-2000) DGCA Licence

19.Sr. Pilot Instructor -do- -do-12(3)(e)(Rs. 1100-1600)

20Pilot Instructor -do- -do-12(3)(e)(Rs. 700-1300)

4. A Selection Committee was constituted in terms of the Statute 12(3)(e) of the said Statutes for interview in the post of Chief Pilot Instructor and one Shri H.S. Agnihotri was recommended therefor.

5. It is not in dispute that the First Respondent made a representation for up-gradation of his scale of pay from Rs.14,300-400-18300 to Rs.16,400-450-20,000 which was approved by the Board having regard to the unique post held by him. A clarification was also issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development on 12.06.2000 stating that the categories of employees should be classified as academic as per the Statutes and treated at par with teachers having the age of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.08.1998. Whereas the age of superannuation of the academic staff was fixed at 62 years, the age of superannuation of technical, administrative and other staff in terms of the Statutes was specified as 60 years.

6. The First Respondent by a letter dated 05.05.2005 was informed by the appellant herein that he would reach the age of superannuation on the expiry of 31.01.2006, pursuant whereto he submitted a representation on 08.06.2005 asserting that as the post of Senior Pilot Instructor held by him was an academic post, his age of superannuation should be treated as 62 years

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 431

IMPORTANT POINTThe post of Senior Pilot Instructor in the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur is classified as a technical post and not as an academic post.

IMPORTANT POINT
The post of Senior Pilot Instructor in the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur is classified as a technical post and not as an academic post.