The court emphasized the binding nature of precedents and Division Bench judgments, highlighting the lack of scope for deviation from established legal principles.

1. The petitioner, a Professor of Agronomy in the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru-560 065, filed this writ petition to quash the communication dated 25.10.2012 as at Annexure-E issued by the 3rd respondent, in so far as it relates to him and for issuing of a writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondents to continue him in service until the attaining of the superannuation age of 65 years.

2. By issuing Annexure-E, the 3rd respondent notified that the petitioner would retire from service on 31.05.2013, with the attaining of the superannuation age of 62 years. The petitioner claims that he having opted for UGC/ICAR Regulations, his service conditions should be regulated by the respondents accordingly and in view of the letter issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, dated 11.05.2010, revising the age of superannuation to 65 years in respect of the Central Institutions, Annexure-E is illegal, as he can remain in service of the University up to the age of 65 years. Reference was made to the Order dated 22.06.2011 passed in W.P. Nos. 13449-13453/2011, wherein it was directed that the age of superannuation of the Associate Professors, Principals and Librarians, who had opted for UGC Pay-scale shall be 65 years.

3. Statement of objections was filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in justification of the decision to retire the petitioner as per Annexure-E with effect from 31.05.2013 and the fixation of age of superannuation of the Professors in the University at 62 years.

4. Sri V. Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Advocate contended that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to Teachers and other academic staff in the University and as such, the petitioner having opted for UGC/ICAR Regulations, the decision of the respondents vide Annexure-E is liable to be quashed and the respondents directed to pay the service benefits to the petitioner by treating him to have remained in service till attaining the superannuation age of 65 years. Extensive argument was advanced by making reference to the report of the UGC Committee constituted on 6th September, 2007 to review the pay-scales and service conditions of University and College Teachers, submitted during October, 2008. Attention was invited to the recommendation made with regard to age of superannuation appearing at para 5.4.2. that the age of superannuation of Teachers should be 65 years whether working in a State or Central University as also whether in a College or in a University. Reliance was placed on the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions in the cases of Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 363; University Grants Commission vs. Neha Anil Bobde, (Gadekar), (2013) 10 SCC 519 and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, (2016) 9 SCC 749.

5. Sriyuths M. Subramani and R. Sridhar Hiremath, learned advocates appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the respondent-University comes under the control of Agricultural Department and therefore the decision taken by the University vide Annexure-E, to relieve the petitioner on the afternoon of 31.05.2013 is proper. It was submitted that by a Government Order dated 24.03.2010, State Government revised the UGC/ICAR pay-scale of Teachers, Librarians and equivalent Cadres of the Agricultural and Horticultural Universities in the State of Karnataka and the said Government Order clearly stipulates that the superannuation age of Teachers/Librarians of Agricultural Universities drawing UGC/ICAR pay-scale shall be 62 years with effect from 28.10.2009. It was further submitted that the said Government Order being applicable to the petitioner, he is not entitled to continue in the service of the University beyond the superannuation age of 62 years. Learned advocates contended that the issue raised for consideration in this petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench Judgment rendered in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Dr. R. Hale