Back
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE
P. J. Dharmaraj – Appellant
Versus
Church Of South India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal before us is arising out of a judgement passed by the High Court of Telangana on 22.11.2021 in Writ Appeal 753 of 2019 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has upheld the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court dated 04.09.2019 in W.P.No.45297 of 2018 whereby the Appellant’s Writ Petition was dismissed wherein he was contesting his retirement from the Respondent No.2 Institute which took effect from 14.08.2018 and the appointment of Respondent No.4 in his place. Aggrieved by this, the Appellant is before us.
3. The facts of the case are such that the Appellant before us was initially appointed as Lecturer in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological (JNT) University in 1985. He was eventually promoted as Reader in 1995. CSI Institute of Technology (CSIIT), Respondent No.2 issued an advertisement dated 25.09.1998 for the post of Director. The Appellant applied against the said advertisement and was selected and appointed as Director vide appointment letter dated 26.11.1998. At the time that the appointment letter was issued to the Appellant, the age of superannuation according to the All India Council For Technical E
Age of retirement – Teachers of affiliated Institute cannot have their age of retirement more than that of teachers of affiliating University
The age of superannuation for university staff is determined by the institution's regulations, which must be consciously adopted, not automatically applied from UGC guidelines.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of the Regulations, 2010 framed by the All India Council for Technical Education, which enhanced the age of superannuation fo....
The main legal point established is that the superannuation age for a petitioner holding a teaching position should be determined in accordance with the applicable notification and regulations, with ....
The court established that the definition of 'Teacher' under the Uttar Pradesh University Act includes the petitioner, entitling him to retirement benefits at 65 years.
The court established that AICTE Regulations, particularly regarding the age of superannuation for faculty, are mandatory and must be adhered to by recognized institutions, prevailing over conflictin....
Temporary instructional roles do not qualify for extended retirement age; petitioner entitled to standard age of superannuation of 62 years based on his substantive role as Assistant Engineer.
The court established that teaching staff have a right to enforce the statutory age of superannuation of 65 years, as per the University Grants Commission regulations.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the age of superannuation for Principals and the requirement of a Ph.D. degree for continuation beyond the age of 62, as mandated by the UG....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
