SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1614

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Bharati Dangre, Ashish S. Chavan, JJ.
Dr. Vilasini Devi Nair - Petitioner
Versus
Goa Institute of Management & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition No. 755 of 2024
Decided On : 13-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Menon
For the Respondent:Mr. Gaurish Agni a/w Mr. Akshay Shirodkarm, Mr. Kishan Kavlekar, Mr. Yash Naik, Mr. Madhav S.S. Cuncoliencar, Mr. Shubham Priolkar, Additional Government Advocate for Mr. S. Karpe h/f Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Deputy Solicitor General of India

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 conflicting local enactments.

Headnote:(A) All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 - Sections 10, 23 - AICTE Regulations 2019 - Applicability of retirement age - The petitioner challenged her forced retirement at age 60 alleging violation of AICTE 2019 Regulations prescribing age 65. Court emphasized AICTE Regulations govern service conditions of technical institutions, yielding precedence over local rules. (Paras 1, 26)

(B) Service Conditions - The court reaffirmed that AICTE has the authority to lay down service conditions and age of superannuation of teachers in technical institutions, as these Regulations hold binding effect (Para 39).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Professor, contested her retirement due to alleged non-compliance with AICTE’s prescribed age of superannuation as per the 2019 regulations. Her appointment followed AICTE norms.

Findings of Court:
Court ruled that the petitioner’s forced retirement notification is unsustainable, affirming her right to continue till age 65.

Issues: Whether the application of AICTE norms regarding age supersedes local regulations; the validity of the retirement notice.

Ratio Decidendi: AICTE Regulations establishing retirement age are mandatory and binding on institutions recognized under AICTE.

Result: Writ petition allowed, and the petitioner is to be reinstated until age 65.

Table of Content
1. issue of age of retirement under aicte regulations. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's background and employment details. (Para 3)
3. questions raised in the petition regarding arbitrary retirement. (Para 4)
4. request for reinstatement till age of superannuation. (Para 5)
5. aicte regulations govern service conditions including retirement age. (Para 6 , 7)
6. arguments addressing the applicability of aicte regulations. (Para 8 , 9)
7. discussion on prior court rulings regarding aicte norms. (Para 10 , 11)
8. acknowledgement of central laws over state enactments. (Para 14 , 15 , 18)
9. requirements mandated by aicte directives. (Para 19 , 20)
10. overview of institutional obligations under aicte. (Para 21)
11. petitioner's justification for continued employment. (Para 22 , 23)
12. court's observations on satisfying service conditions. (Para 24)
13. importance of adherence to aicte regulations. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
14. judicial decisions stressing the enforceability of aicte regulations. (Para 29 , 30)
15. continued compliance of educational institutions to aicte regulations. (Para 31 , 32)
16. court's ruling in favor of the petitioner. (Para 33 , 34)
17. final directive for reinstatement and financial compensation. (Para 35 , 36 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

BHARATI DANGRE J.

1. Once again the issue of applicability of the AICTE regulations with reference to the age of retirement of an Assistant Professor of a Private Self Finance Standalone Institution, which has subjected itself to AICTE norms as the approval is confirmed by AICTE on year to year basis, has been raised before us.

We are conscious that, time and again, this very issue as to the age of retirement of the teaching/non-teaching staff working in a technical institution, which are governed by All Indian Council Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as AICTE) has warranted attention of various Courts throughout the country, including the Apex Court, and with the series of pronouncements on the said subject, we are called upon to answer the question in the backdrop of the factual sequence of events placed before us.

2. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Ajay Menon for the petitioner, Mr. Gaurish Agni for respondent no.1 and 2, Mr. Shubham Priolkar Additional Government Advocate for respondent no .3 and Mr. Karpe holding for Mr. Pravin Faldessai, the Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent no.4.

By consent of parties, on the pleadings being completed we issue ‘Rule’ by making it returnable forthwith.

3. The facts place before us reveal that the petitioner completed under graduation in Medicine from Kerala University in the year 1998 and also completed her post-graduation in Hospital Administration (MHA), faculty of Medicine from Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. She was recruited as a lecturer in School of Medical Education, Mahatma University, Kerala from the years 2002 to 2004 and from 2004, she was holding the post of Assistant Professor of ‘Health, Economics, Management and Policy’ in Jimma University, Ethiopia under the United Nations Development Program. She completed 18 months research fellowship in Health Economics of Non-Communicable Diseases at Monash University and also completed her PHD in Health System Studies in June, 2019.

With this academic background she appeared for an interview held by respondent no.1, Goa Institute of Management and on 13/08/2019, received an ‘Offer of Appointment’ as a full time faculty member holding the post of ‘Assistant Professor’. Since, she was placed on probation, on its successful completion, on 26/08/2020, she received ‘confirmation of an offer of employment’ letter from the Goa Institute of Management declaring that she has successfully completed period of probation on 27/08/2020.

The petitioner was communicated with the subject performance review 2023 and she responded to the said communication on 2/06/2023 setting out the detail of the work undertaken by her.

It is the case of the petitioner that she was called to attend a meetin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top