Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Dr.G.R.Bharath Sai Kumar, S/O G.V.Rajashekar – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Karnataka Represented by Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.15421 of 2020 (S -R)
Decided On : 24-05-2021
All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 – Section 10 – Age of superannuation – Petitioner in this writ petition calls in question the memo by which the petitioner is sought to be retired on attaining the age of superannuation by the fourth respondent/Siddaganga Institute of Technology contrary to the regulations of the AICTE
Finding of the Court:
There is no compulsion to accept or adopt the UGC scheme which enhanced the age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years. – Regulations of the AICTE applicable to the case at hand are mandatory in nature and do not leave any discretion to the degree level institutions to implement it or otherwise, as it is couched in such language that following mandate of the Regulations would be in consonance with the maintenance of minimum standards of teaching and appointment of faculties in all the degree level technical institutions. – Judgment in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma, would be inapplicable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand. – In the light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Unni Krishnan and all other judgments (supra) with regard to binding nature of the Regulations of AICTE upon the Institutes it governs, insofar as prescription of norms and standards, inter alia, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. –Impugned Comm unication/Mem c issued by the 4th respondent insofar as it pertains to the petitioner stands obliterated.
Result : Writ Petition Allowed
ORDER :
The petitioner in this writ petition calls in question the memo dated 03.12.2019 by which the petitioner is sought to be retired on attaining the age of superannuation by the fourth respondent/Siddaganga Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Institute’ for short), contrary to the regulations of the AICTE.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:
Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on 01.04.1985 in the department of Mechanical Engineering of the Institute and was from time to time promoted to the higher echelons of office and was at the relevant point in time working as a Professor. The petitioner was born on 18.12.1960. The Institute issued a Memo on 03.12.2019 declaring the staff of the Institute who would retire in the year 2020. The name of the petitioner in the said Memo was at Sl.No.17 to be retiring on 31.12.2020. On the verge of his retirement, the petitioner files this writ petition on the ground that he is working in the cadre of Professor and is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 65 years in terms of the guidelines of respondent-3/The All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “AICTE” for short) which depict that age of retirement of a Professor would be 65 years.
3. This Court by an order dated 30.12.2020 granted an interim order of stay of retirement of the petitioner on the strength of which, the petitioner continues to be in employment in the cadre of Professor even as on date. It is the Memo / communication seeking to retire the petitioner on 31.12.2020 that is called in question in this writ petition.
4. Heard Sri V.Laxminarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. M.C.Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Satosh S. Nagarale, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Smt. Sona Badiger, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would raise the following contentions, the Regulations of the AICTE are mandatory to be followed by the Institute on every facet of service conditions concerning its employees, which is condition precedent for grant of an approval or recognition by the AICTE; the age of retirement of all the faculty members of the Institute has to be at 65 years in terms of the Regulations of the AICTE; petitioner is entitled to continue up to the age of 65 years in terms of the AICTE Regulations; and the Institute being an aided Educational Institution or a private Institution hardly matters.
6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel representing the fourth respondent raises the following contentions, the Institute is an unaided Educational Institution and a writ petition against the action of an unaided Educational Institution is not maintainable; the determination of age of superannuation is a matter of policy of the Institute; there can be no application of any order of the Government or the AICTE directing enhancement of age of retirement as it receives no aid from the State and is free to regulate the service conditions of its employees ; all the employees of the Institute are to retire at the age of 60 years and no exception can be carved out to the petitioner who is also an employee of the Institute.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the AICTE would submit that in terms of the mandate of the Act the AICTE has been issuing notifications from time to time making it applicable to all degree level technical institutions and all service conditions including retirement as depicted in the Notification dated 01.03.2019 has come into force from the date of its Notification in the official gazette.
8. The learned Additional Government Advocate would toe the lines of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and would submit that the age o
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
