IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the age of superannuation for Principals and the requirement of a Ph.D. degree for continuation beyond the age of 62, as mandated by the UGC Regulations, influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARTHY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 11.1.2023 passed in C.W.J.C. No.38 of 2022 whereby the learned Single Judge while holding that the appellant having moved an application for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement, his application could not have been accepted and approved and the same was bad in law. The learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that in view of the fact that the appellant did not possess Ph.D degree, he cannot be allowed to continue after 62 years of age and is thus not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that the appellant was appointed as the Principal of Sriswami Parankushacharya Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidayalay, Hulasganj, District Gaya (at present District Jehanabad) (‘the College’ in short) on 22.2.1990. He started working in the capacity of the Principal. By his application dated 12.11.2021 addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the Central Sanskrit University, Janakpuri, New Delhi (‘the University’ in short), the appellant expressed his desire to retire voluntarily. As per the appellant’s case, the said application for voluntary retirement was withdrawn by his other letter dated 14.11.2021 wherein the appellant expressed his willingness to work till the age of 65 years. The Registrar-cum-In charge of the University wrote a letter dated 16.11.2021 to the Chairman of the Managing Committee forwarding the application of the appellant date 14.11.2021 for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. However, the respondents continued to sit over the mater and neither any decision was taken nor communicated to him.

4. As such the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 38 of 2022 in this Court for the following reliefs:

“That, the petitioner is invoking writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court for issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) commanding the respondent authorities to accept the withdrawal of his earlier request for voluntary retirement. The petitioner further seeks relief that he should be allowed to function as Principal till date of his superannuation i.e. after completion of 65 years of age and any other relief/reliefs for which petitioner is found entitled too in the facts and circumstances of the case”

5. Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondents in the writ application. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.7 was also filed in the appeal.

6. The case of the respondent-Managing Committee of the College was to the effect that the appellant who was the Principal of the College, of his own volition submitted his application dated 12.11.2021 to the Vice Chancellor of the University seeking voluntary retirement. The Vice Chancellor forwarded the same to the Managing Committee of the College stating that he had given his consent for accepting the appellant’s request. It was further directed that the senior most teacher be appointed as Principal. As instructed, the Chairperson of the Managing Committee accepted the appellant’s request for voluntary retirement on 12.11.2021, appointed respondent no.7 on the post of Principal and communicated the same to the appellant who refused to acknowledge receipt of the same. The respondent no.7 joined and took charge as Principal of the College and informed the Chairperson of the Managing Committee as also the Vice Chancellor, Central Sanskrit University.

7. The learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 11.1.2023 was pleased to dispose of the writ application. It is against this judgment that the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

8. No appeal has been preferred by the writ-respondents.

9. Heard Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, Dr. K.N. Singh, learned Senior counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 and Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Senior counsel for the respondent no. 4 and 7.

10. The relevant facts in brief are that the