IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
SEBASTIAN JOSEPH S/O JOSEPH SEBASTIAN – Petitioner
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 28550 of 2022
Decided On : 27-10-2022
Posts of Professor - Upper Age Limit - Petitioners impugn Ext.P1 notification of University of Kerala, to extent to which it imposes an upper age limit of 50 years for candidates to apply to posts of Professor to teach in its various Departments - Ext.P8 order, which has been issued by Government of Kerala, relaxing upper age limit criterion for purpose of direct recruitment to post of Associate Professors in various Universities in State.
Findings of the Court:
When “UGC Regulations 2018” has deliberately and consciously refused to impose stipulation of an upper age limit for purpose of appointment as a Professor, Court fail to understand how any such contra - stipulation in “First Statutes” of Kerala University, particularly when it was introduced as early as in year 1986 - much before “UGC Regulation” were framed - can operate to detriment of persons like petitioners - Court is persuaded to afore view also because of Ext.P8 order, which has been issued by Government of Kerala as recently, relaxing upper age limit criterion for purpose of direct recruitment to post of Associate Professors in various Universities in State - Indubitably, Government of Kerala was also aware that such a stipulation is untenable, when they made said order and Court is sure that Kerala University cannot act contrary to such settled position - Court allow this writ petition and direct competent Authority of University to consider application of petitioners also and call them for interview, subject to them satisfying all eligible criteria and qualifications, de hors fact that they have crossed age of fifty.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
1. The petitioners impugn Ext.P1 notification of the University of Kerala, to the extent to which it imposes an upper age limit of 50 years for candidates to apply to the posts of Professor to teach in its various Departments.
2. Sri. T. Rajasekharan Nair - learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that the afore stipulation in Ext.P1 is illegal because the applicable Regulations of the University Grants Commission, namely the “UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education 2018” (for short ‘UGC Regulation 2018’) do not prescibe any such inhibition; and therefore, must be construed that any person who is otherwise qualified, will be eligible to apply until the age of superannuation. He argued that, however, the Kerala University appears to be banking upon its First Statutes of the year 1977, to hold otherwise; and that, going by the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the recent one, namely Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. vs. Dr. Rajasree M.S. and Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 7634-7635 of 2022), the University is bound by the “UGC Regulations” and cannot act contrary to the same. He thus prayed that Ext.P1, to the extent impugned, be set aside and his clients be allowed to participate in the selection process de hors the fact that they have crossed 50 years in age.
3. Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy - learned standing counsel for the UGC, very pertinently, submitted that the “UGC Regulations 2018” do not provide for any upper age limit for candidates to apply to the posts of Professor and that this has been specifically excluded by it, keeping mind the inviolable desideration of experienced persons being selected. He argued that the “First Statutes” of the Kerala University cannot override the “UGC Regulations” and that this is not a case where there is a lacuna in the said Regulations, but it was consciously decided not to have any upper age limit for the posts of Professor.
4. Sri. Thomas Abraham - learned standing counsel for the Kerala University, however, submitted that when the “UGC Regulations 2018” is silent on an issue, the “First Statutes” of the University would complement it. He pointed out that, as per Statute 5A of Chapter III of the Kerala University First Statutes 1977, the maximum age limit for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Professor is 50 years. He submitted that, therefore, Ext.P1 is irreproachable.
5. When I analyse the afore syllogistic and rival positions, it is indubitable that when the “UGC Regulations” occupy the field, the “First Statutes” of the Kerala University cannot be in conflict. This is the mandate of the various judgments of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including in Sreejith (supra).
6. Therefore, the real question is whether there is a lacuna in the “UGC Regulations 2018” so as to enable the University to even consider supplementing it through the provisions of their “First Statutes.”
7. As I have seen above, Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy takes the affirmative stand that the “UGC Regulations 2018” did not stipulate a higher age limit for the purpose of appointment to the posts of Professor deliberately and that this is not an omission, since the intent of the Commission was to ensure that every person, who is otherwise qualified and eligible, should have an opportunity at the selection process.
8. This being so, it is obvious that there is no lacuna in the “UGC Regulation 2018” and I, therefore, cannot countenance the arguments of Sri. Thomas Abraham - learned standing counsel for the University, that the “First Statutes” of the University would come to play.
9. To paraphrase, when the “UGC Regulations 2018” has deliberately and consciously refused to impose the stipulation of an upper age limit for the purpose of appointment as a Professor, I fail to understand how any such
Selection Process - Age Limit “UGC Regulations 2018” did not stipulate a higher age limit for purpose of appointment to posts of Professor deliberately and that this is not an omission, since intent ....
Upper age limits in recruitment can conflict with national regulations, emphasizing the need for consideration of qualifications without arbitrary restrictions.
The High Court declines to intervene in interlocutory matters concerning the conflict between UGC Regulations and state-specific Special Rules, directing such substantive legal determinations to be r....
UGC Regulations not binding on state university constituent nursing colleges for retirement age without state adoption; nursing faculty retire at 60 years per INC norms and state policy, distinct fro....
University Grants Commission Regulations on superannuation are recommendatory and not binding on state universities, allowing discretion in their implementation.
The UGC Regulations apply to universities and colleges receiving substantial financial assistance from the State Governments and cannot be enforced on private unaided institutions. The age of superan....
The state is permitted to establish maximum age limits for appointments that are lower than the maximum age prescribed by the National Medical Commission, as the regulations do not impose a mandatory....
Eligibility criteria for recruitment, including age limits, cannot be altered mid-process, and horizontal reservation for age relaxation is not permissible under existing rules.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has already found that “UGC Regulations” had undergone a change, consequent to decision of Government of India mentioned above and , an argument on contrary is tenuous.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.