IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Nath Tilhari, Duppala Venkata Ramana, JJ.
M.R.K.Polytechnic - Appellant
Versus
J.J.S Prasad - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 404 of 2023
Decided On : 16-10-2023
AGE OF SUPERANNUATION - Employment Dispute - A.P. Education Act 1982, Act 1 of 2015, All India Council for Technical Education (Pay Scales, Service conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Diploma) Regulations, 2010 - The court discussed the applicability of A.P. Education Act 1982 and Act 1 of 2015 in enhancing the retirement age from 58 to 60 years, but ultimately relied on the Regulations, 2010 which enhanced the age of superannuation for teachers in Technical Institutions to 65 years. The court also referenced the judgment in Pramod v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2016 SC 204, which upheld the age of superannuation at 65 years for teachers in polytechnic institutions.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners, who were working as Lecturer in Physics and Senior Instructor in a polytechnic institution, challenged their retirement at the age of 58, claiming entitlement to continue up to 65 years as per AICTE Regulations and alternatively up to 60 years as per A.P. Education Act 1982 and Act 1 of 2015.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Regulations, 2010 enhanced the age of superannuation for teachers in Technical Institutions to 65 years, and upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the respondents to continue the writ petitioners in service till the age of 65.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of the age of superannuation for the writ petitioners, considering the conflicting provisions of A.P. Education Act 1982, Act 1 of 2015, and the Regulations, 2010.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the statutory nature of the Regulations, 2010 framed by the All India Council for Technical Education, which enhanced the age of superannuation for teachers in Technical Institutions to 65 years, and also referenced the judgment in Pramod v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2016 SC 204, which upheld the age of superannuation at 65 years for teachers in polytechnic institutions.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the respondents to continue the writ petitioners in service till the age of 65. No order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. - Heard Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Advocate through virtual mode, assisted by Sri N. Bharat Babu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the writ petitioners in physical mode.
2. This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment/order dtd. 19/7/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19447 of 2016.
3. The 1st writ petitioner was working as Lecturer in Physics and the 2nd writ petitioner was working as Senior Instructor in M.R.K. Polytechnic, the appellant herein, the respondent No.4 in the writ petition. They were served with notice of retirement on attaining the age of 58 years in the year 2016, challenging the same the writ petition was filed, inter alia on the ground that the writ petitioners were entitled to continue upto 65 years as per All India Council for Technical Edcuation (in short, AICTE) Regulations. Alternatively, it was also pleaded that writ petitioners would be entitled to continue upto 60 years as per A. P. Education Act 1982 and Act 1 of 2015, which amended Sec. 78-A of the A. P. Education Act, 1982, to enhance the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years.
4. After contest, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to continue the writ petitioners in service of the respondent No.4, the present appellant Institution till superannuation i.e. 65 years of age.
5. Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Sec. 78-A of the A. P. Education Act is not applicable to the writ petitioners. His submission is that the said provision applies to the private aided Educational Institutions, whereas the appellant is a private unaided institution.
6. However, we are not on the aspect as to whether the age of superannuation of the writ petitioners would be governed by Sec. 78-A of A.P. Education Act or not, in as much as the appellant Institution is certainly governed by the regulations framed by the All India Council for Technical Education.
7. The All India Council for Technical Education (Pay Scales, Service conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Diploma) Regulations, 2010), apply to Technical Institutions conducting technical education and such other courses/programmes and areas as notified by the council from time to time.
8. The Regulations, 2010, inter alia prescribe the age of superannuation. Such provision reads as under:-
"Age of Superannuation:-
i) In order to meet the situation arising out of the shortage of teachers in Technical Institutions and the consequent vacant positions therein, the age of superannuation for teachers in Technical Institutions has been enhanced to sixty five years, vide the Department of Higher Education letter No.F.No.1-19/2006-U.II dtd. 23/3/2007, for those involved in class room teaching in order to attract eligible persons to the teaching career and to retain teachers in service for a longer period.
(ii) Subject to availability of vacant positions and fitness, teachers shall also be reemployed on contract appointment beyond the age of sixty five years up to the age of seventy years. Reemployment beyond the age of superannuation shall, however, be done selectively, for a limited period of 3 years ie the first instance and then for another further period of 2 years purely on the basis of merit, experience, area of specialization and peer group review and only against available vacant positions without affecting selection or promotion prospects of eligible teachers.
iii) Whereas the enhancement of the age of superannuation for teachers engaged in class room teaching is intended to attract eligible persons to a career in teaching and to meet the shortage of teachers by retaining teachers in service for a longer period, and whereas there is no shortage in the categories of Librarians, the increase in the age of superannuation from the present sixty two y
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....
AICTE regulations mandating a retirement age of 65 for faculty are statutory and binding on all institutions, including private ones.
Age of retirement – Teachers of affiliated Institute cannot have their age of retirement more than that of teachers of affiliating University
AICTE Regulations on superannuation age prevail over state rules for technical institution faculty unless state formally adopts otherwise.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the AICTE Regulations, UGC Regulations, and Council of Architecture Regulations are applicable to the age of superannuation of faculty members....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.