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

2011 Supreme(Raj) 1451

[Citation : 2012(2) RLW 1684 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
R.M. Sharma (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Mishra, CJ.)
HON'BLE ARUN MISHRA, CJ.
HON'BLE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI, J.
R.M. Sharma (Dr.)
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos. 774 of 2010 and 15 Others, decided on 20.12.2011

Advocates Appeared
Dr. P.S. Bhati, Dhirendra Singh, Manoj Bhandari, J.L.Purohit and Mukesh Rajpurohit, for respective Appellants;
G.R.Punia, AAG, Kuldeep Mathur, Girish Joshi, Sanjay Mathur and Sanjit Purohit, for respective Respondents

Headnote:University Grants Commission Act, 1956, Secs. 12(J), 26(c), (e), (f) and (g); U.G.C. Regulations, 2000 — Enhancing age of superannuation for University teachers from 60 to 65 years as prescribed by the UGC in the UGC Regulations — State Govt. decided not to increase it — Whether mandatory — Held — To prescribe the age of superannuation of its employees, is essentially the function of the State Govt. and that has not been given to UGC under the Act — Sec. 26(1)(c) empowers the UGC to specify the terms and conditions of service of the employees appointed by it but it does not have such powers of the employees of the Universities or State Govt. — It is within the domain of the State Govt. — Not mandatory — Rather it is open for State Govt. to adopt the scheme or not — Action of the State Govt. is neither illegal nor arbitrary nor violative of Regulations of 2010. (Paras 21 to 23, 29 to 34)

       Appeals dismissed.

       fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx vf/kfu;e] 1956] /kkjk 12¼.k½] 26¼x½] ¼M+½] ¼p½] o ¼N½( ;w-th-lh- fofu;e] 2000 & fo'ofo|ky; f'k{kdksa dh vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q 60 ls c<+kdj 65 o"kZ djuk tSlk fd ;w-th-lh- }kjk ;w-th-lh- fofu;eksa esa fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gS & jkT; ljdkj us bls ugha c<+kus dk fu.kZ; fd;k & D;k ;g vkKkid gS\ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vius deZpkfj;ksa dh vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q fu/kkZfjr djuk vko';d :i ls jkT; ljdkj dk dk;Z gS tks vf/kfu;e ds rgr ;w-th-lh- dks ugha fn;k x;k gS & /kkjk 26¼1½¼x½ ;w-th-lh- dks mlds Lo;a }kjk fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok 'krksZa ,oa fucU/kuksa dks fofufnZ"V djus dh 'kfDr iznku djrh gS ysfdu fo'ofo|ky;ksa ;k jkT; ljdkj ds deZpkfj;ksa dh ,slh 'kfDr izkIr ugha gS & ;g jkT; ljdkj ds vf/kdkj {ks= esa gS & vkKkid ugha & jkT; ljdkj bl ;kstuk dks viukus ;k ugha viukus gsrq Lora= gS & jkT; ljdkj dh dk;Zokgh u rks voS/k gS] u gh euekuh vkSj u gh 2010 ds fofu;eksa dh mYya?kudkjh gSA ¼in la[;k 21 ls 23] 29 ls 34½

       vihysa [kkfjt dhA


       

Hon'ble MISHRA, CJ.—The appellants in the appeals are claiming that the age of superannuation for University Teachers should be sixty five, instead of 60 years, as prescribed by the University Grant Commission in the Regulations called "UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education 2010, hereinafter referred-to as "the Regulations of 2010". The Single Bench has dismissed the writ application by the impugned order dated 5/8/2010.

2. The Regulations of 2010 have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of University Grants Commission Act, 1956, hereinafter referred-to as "the UGC Act" and in pursuance of the MHRD O.M.No.F.23-7/2008-IFD dated 23rd October, 2008 read with Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) O.M.No.F.1-1/2008-IC dated 30th August, 2008 and in terms of the MHRD Notification dated 31.12.2008. The Regulations of 2010 have been framed in supersession of the University Grants Commission (minimum qualifications required for the appointment and career advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 issued by University Grants Commission vide Regulation No.F.3-1/2000 (PS) dated 4th April, 2000, together with all amendments made therein from time to time. It has been provided in Regulation 1.2 of the Regulations of 2010 that they shall apply to every university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college recognized by the Commission. The applicability of the Regulations of 2010 is not in question in the instant case. Regulation 2 of the Regulations of 2010 provides that the minimum qualifications for appointment and other service conditions of University and College teachers, Librarians and Directors of Physical Education and Sports as a measure for the maintenance of standards in higher education, shall be as provided in the Annexure to these Regulations. The Annexure is part of the Regulation of 2010. The Regulation 2.1.0 provides that the revised scales of pay and other service conditions including age of superannuation in central universities and other institutions maintained and funded by the University Grants Commission, shall be strictly in accordance with the decision of the Central Government, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), as contained in Appendix-I. Further in Regulation 2.3.1 with respect to revised scales of pay and age of superannuation as provided in Clause 2.1.0, it has been observed that it may also be extended to Universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislature and maintained by the State Governments, subject to the implementation of the scheme as a composite one in adherence of the terms and conditions laid down in the MHRD notifications provided as Appendix I and in the MHRD letter dated 11th May, 2010. Regulation 3 of the Annexure deals with the recruitment and qualifications, according to which appointment is to be made on the basis of merit through all India advertisement; minimum qualification required for the post has been provided; minimum requirements of a good academic record at the master's level and qualifying in the National Eligibility Test has also been provided; and minimum marks with relaxation has also been provided. Regulation 4 of the Annexure takes care of the direct recruitment as necessary and such other matters for issuing standard publication have also been provided under the Annexure. However, what has not been provided in the Regulations of 2010, has been mentioned in the Communication of the Director, Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, dated 11th May, 2010, which












































































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