Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
University of Mumbai - Appellant
Versus
Satish V. Ratnaparkhi - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 12761 of 2019 in Nterim Application No. 3093 of 2022
Decided On : 28-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, Siddharth Shitole, Advocate, Ashutosh Kulkarni, Advocate, Satish V. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
The age of superannuation for university directors is governed by AICTE regulations, which allow for retirement at 65 years, and any university resolution attempting to reduce this age must comply with statutory requirements.

Headnote:
Writ Petition - Retirement Age of University Director - Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, Sections 2(12), 2(25), 2(34), 2(44), 5(11), 5(57), 31(v); Government Resolutions dated 5/3/2011, 12/7/2016; AICTE Act, 1987, Sections 10(1)(g), 10(1)(i), 23; AICTE Regulations dated 1/3/2019 - The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the respondent, a Director at a university institute, could continue in service until the age of 65 years, interpreting the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act and AICTE regulations. The court found that the Management Council's resolution reducing the retirement age to 60 years was invalid as it did not comply with statutory requirements and that the Government Resolution of 2011, which allowed for an extension of retirement age to 65 years, remained applicable. The court emphasized the binding nature of AICTE regulations on service conditions, including retirement age.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was appointed as Professor cum Director at a university institute in 2012. In 2019, he was retired at the age of 60 based on a university resolution. He challenged this decision before the Mumbai University and College Tribunal, which ruled in his favor, allowing him to continue until 65 years of age. The university filed a writ petition against this ruling.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's order, confirming that the respondent's retirement age was governed by the AICTE regulations, which allowed for retirement at 65 years, and that the university's resolution to retire him at 60 was invalid.
Issues: Whether the respondent's retirement age was 60 or 65 years, and the validity of the Management Council's resolution reducing the retirement age.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the AICTE regulations, which set the retirement age at 65 years, were binding and that the Management Council's resolution lacked statutory approval, thus could not alter the respondent's retirement age.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's order that the respondent could continue in service until the age of 65 years, and confirming the need for a performance review to assess his eligibility for continued service.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

MILIND N.JADHAV, J. - By consent of parties present Writ Petition No. 12761 of 2019 is taken up for final hearing and disposal. Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

'b) To quash and set aside the impugned Judgment and Order dtd. 20/9/2019 passed by the Mumbai University and College Tribunal in Appeal No. 4 of 2019 along with Misc. Application No. 3 of 2019 (Exh. G) and to dismiss the said Appeal (Exh. A) and Misc. Application (Exh. B) entirely'

2. Impugned order dtd. 20/9/2019 has been passed in Appeal No.4 of 2019 alongwith Misc. Appeal No.3 of 2019 by the learned Mumbai University and College Tribunal at Mumbai (for short 'the Tribunal').

3. Brief facts are set out hereunder:-

3.1. On 8/2/2012, Respondent was appointed as Professor' Cum'Director (Open) in Alkesh Dinesh Mody Institute for Financial and Management Studies, University of Mumbai (for short 'Institute'), as per the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted under Sec. 78 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (for short 'Universities Act') after following the prescribed selection process by the Petitioner - University.

3.2. By order dater dtd. 21/2/2019, issued by the Registrar of the Petitioner - University, Respondent was retired from the said post on two grounds viz; (i) that he had completed 60 years; and (ii) that the Management Council of the University had passed a resolution fixing the date of retirement of Director at 60 years.

3.3. Respondent filed statutory Appeal before the Tribunal being Appeal No.4 of 2019 challenging the Order dtd. 21/2/2019 of the Registrar.

3.4. Tribunal initially while admitting the Appeal, passed status quo order. However, according to Respondent, pursuant to the said 'status quo' order, he was given charge of the Director only on paper.

3.5. At the time of hearing of Appeal, Respondent relied on Government Resolution (for short 'GR') dtd. 5/3/2011, as per which the tenure of Principal / Director in any government college affiliated to Non-Agricultural Universities can be extended upto 65 years, with a rider that on completion of 62 years, there shall be a performance review / appraisal of the incumbent.

3.6. Tribunal by a detailed and reasoned judgment and Order dtd. 20/9/2019, allowed the Appeal of Respondent and set aside the Order dtd. 21/2/2019 issued by the Registrar.

3.7. Hence, University filed the present Writ Petition in this Court impugning the order of the Tribunal dtd. 20/9/2019.

3.8. Petitioner - University argued before this Court that GR dtd. 5/3/2011 is not applicable to the post of appointment of Director of an Institute under Mumbai University. Petitioner admitted before this Court that though there was a status quo order passed by Tribunal at the time of admission of Appeal, Petitioner - University had given charge of the post of the Director of the Institute to Respondent only on paper. However, Respondent submitted before this Court that he was forcibly not allowed to function as Director of the Institute.

3.9. By interim order dtd. 16/12/2019, High Court declined to stay the order of the Tribunal and made it clear that Petitioner - University shall allow Respondent to continue as Director of the Institute and he shall be paid his salary, etc. The relevant paragraphs of the order dtd. 16/12/2019 read thus:

'8. Issue involved in the Writ Petition may require further deliberation but at the same time, court is mindful of the fact that Tribunal after the deliberation had clearly taken the view that service of the Respondent should continue till the age of 65 years and that order/letter dtd. 21/5/2019 which had prematurely retired the Petitioner, is illegal and unsustainable.

9. In the circumstances and balance the interest, it is made clear that Respondent shall be allowed to continue as Director of the Institute and paid his salary etc.. Functioning of the Respondent as Director of the Institute shall, however, be subject to outcome of the Writ Petition.'

3.10. It is Respondent's c