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

1999 Supreme(Raj) 1444

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

The provisions of a special enactment (Ordinance 67A) may be overridden by the provisions of a general enactment (the Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993) if the general enactment has an overriding effect.

Headnote:

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.

JUDGMENT

1. - In all these writ petitions, a common question of law involved is the interpretation of Ordinance 67A of the Ordinances of the University of Rajasthan, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of factual matrix. Dr. Kailash Chandra Mittal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 544/99) is being taken into consideration.

2. The petitioner entered into the services of the respondent College. At the time of entering into the service, an agreement was entered in between the petitioner and the respondent College. In the agreement, the age of superannuation was mentioned as 60 years The petitioner kept on serving the respondent College. In the meantime, the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989') came into operation and was given effect from 1.1.1993. Under the Act of 1989, Rules were framed which were named as The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1993'). Under Rule 45 of the Rules of 1993, a provision was made that a teacher of the Non-Governmental institution will retire at the age of 58. The petitioner was sought to be retired on 14.7.1998 when he completed the age of 58. He preferred a writ petition before this Court. It was observed by this Court that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Government Notification dated 27.6.1999. By this notification, the age of superannuation of all the Government servants was raised from 58 to 60 years and, therefore, the petitioner was not retired. Now, once again the age of the Government Servants has been reduced from 60 to 58 years Therefore, the petitioner is being retired, whereas he completes the age of 60 years on 30.6.2001 and in this connection, he submitted an application to the respondent College.

3. The case of the petitioner is that his age of superannuation has to be governed by Ordinance 67A of the Ordinances of University of Rajasthan because Maharshi Dayanand University has adopted all the Ordinances of the Rajasthan University. Ordinance 67A provides that whole time teacher in a college affiliated to the University will retire on attaining the age of 60 years Ordinance 67A reads as under:

"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."

4. The petitioner submits that in State of Rajasthan, there are the Rules for payment of Grant-in-Aid to Non-Government Educational, Cultural and Physical Education Institutions in Rajasthan, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Grant in Aid Rules of 1963'). Wherein it has been laid down that these Rules are over and above the conditions prescribed by the University and Rule 3(2) specifies the Conditions of grant and in Rule 3(16), it has been provided that the age of superannuation of the teachers shall not ordinarily exceed 58, subject to the provided extension.

5. The petitioner has made reference to Section 40 of the Act of 1989, which reads as under:

"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."

6. Rule 45 of the Rules of 1993 provides for the age of superannuation of the teachers The relevant portion of the said Rule 45 reads as under:

"Rule 45. The age of Super


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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