RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR BENCH
Shivraj V.Patil, Bhagwati Prasad, JJ.
Dr. Kailash Chandra Mittal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan And Ors - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 544, 744, 745, 746, 747 and 891 of 1999.
Decided On : 8-10-1999
ORDINANCE 67A - AGE OF SUPERANNUATION - RAJASTHAN NON-GOVERNMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ACT, 1989 - RAJASTHAN NON-GOVERNMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (RECOGNITION, GRANT-IN-AID AND SERVICE CONDITIONS ETC.) RULES, 1993 - GRANT-IN-AID RULES OF 1963 - UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN ACT, 1946 - STATUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - RETIREMENT AGE OF AFFILIATED COLLEGES TEACHERS - APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE 67A - OVERRIDING EFFECT OF SECTION 40 OF THE ACT OF 1989 - VALIDITY OF SECTION 22 OF THE ACT OF 1989 - MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITIONS - CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 22 OF THE ACT OF 1989.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher in a non-government college affiliated to the University of Rajasthan, challenged his retirement at the age of 58 years as per the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (Rules of 1993), arguing that Ordinance 67A of the Ordinances of the University of Rajasthan provided for retirement at the age of 60 years.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Ordinance 67A was not applicable to the petitioner's case as the college was receiving grant-in-aid from the Government and was, therefore, covered by the Rules of 1993. The Court also held that Section 40 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (Act of 1989) had an overriding effect and rendered the provisions of Ordinance 67A ineffective. The Court further held that Section 22 of the Act of 1989, which provided for a single Tribunal for the entire State, was constitutionally valid and did not violate the petitioner's right to access justice.
Issues: 1. Whether Ordinance 67A of the Ordinances of the University of Rajasthan was applicable to the petitioner's case. 2. Whether Section 40 of the Act of 1989 had an overriding effect on Ordinance 67A. 3. Whether Section 22 of the Act of 1989 was constitutionally valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Ordinance 67A was not applicable to the petitioner's case because the college was receiving grant-in-aid from the Government and was, therefore, covered by the Rules of 1993. 2. Section 40 of the Act of 1989 had an overriding effect on Ordinance 67A and rendered the provisions of Ordinance 67A ineffective. 3. Section 22 of the Act of 1989 was constitutionally valid and did not violate the petitioner's right to access justice.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner.
"0.67A. The date of compulsory retirement of a permanent whole time teacher in a college affiliated to the University other than those maintained by the Government is the day on which he attains the age of 60 years In special circumstances, however, to be recorded in writing, whole-time permanent teacher of outstanding merit particularly known for his excellence and quality of teaching may be retained in service upto the age of sixty two years provided he continues to be mentally and physically fit for duty. Such an extension shall be granted by the Management with the prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor and the Syndicate."
"Section 40. Overriding effect of the Act.
the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law."
"Rule 45. The age of Super
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.