AICTE regulations prevail over State laws in conflicts regarding retirement age, and courts should be cautious in granting interim relief that extends service beyond retirement age.

ORDER :

(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ., Shubha Mehta, J.)

Heard on applications (I.A. No. 1/2023 & 3/2023) for vacation of stay order dated 13.04.2023 passed by this Court.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2-applicant-Rajasthan Technical University as also learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1-applicant-State, placing reliance on the provisions contained in Section 31 of the Rajasthan Technical University Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTU Act, 2006'), argued that the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to continue in service until they attain the age of 65 years is misconceived in law. They would submit that challenge to the validity of Section 31 of the RTU Act, 2006 and prayer for direction to comply with the All India Council for Technical Education Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff such as Library, Physical Education and Training & Placement Personnel in Technical Institutions and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Technical Education-(Degree) Regulation, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the AICTE Regulation of 2019') is based on completely misconceived legal premise that the age of retirement prescribed in the AICTE Regulation of 2019 will have primacy over the legislative scheme of statutory provisions contained in Section 31 of the RTU Act, 2006. They would submit that the statutes, which have been framed in exercise of the powers under the Act, clearly provide that the retirement age as specified in the AICTE Regulation of 2019 would be applicable only if approved by the State Government, renders the applicability of the Regulation of 2019 subject to the approval of the State Government. The service conditions were determined by the State legislature while enacting the RTU Act, 2006. The competence of the State legislature to determine the terms and conditions of services flows from Entry 25 of List III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and there is no repugnancy with the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the AICTE Act of 1987') and the regulations framed thereunder. Further submission of learned Senior Counsel as also learned Additional Advocate General is that it is only in the absence of legislation by the State legislature or the service rules framed by the Governor in exercise of its legislative powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India that the AICTE Regulation of 2019, prescribing the age of retirement, would be effective and operative. Rajasthan Technical University is a State university, which is funded and controlled by the Government of Rajasthan. In support of aforesaid contentions, learned Senior Counsel as also learned Additional Advocate General have relied upon several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court as also other High Courts in the cases of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Another v. Bikartan Das & Others, Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Others v. Union of India & Others, Jagdish Prasad Sharma & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, Dr. J. Vijayan & Others v. The State of Kerala & Others, Anil Kumar Vitthal Shete & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Another, B. Bharat Kumar & Others v. Osmania University & Others, State of U.P. & Another v. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. & Another and Dalpat Singh Rajpurohit v. State of Rajasthan & Others.[(1) Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Another v. Bikartan Das & Others (Civil Appeal No. 3339 of 2023 decided on 16.08.2023).]

[(2) Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Others v. Union of India & Others (2021) 6 SCC 568.]

[(3) Jagdish Prasad Sharma & Others v. State of Bihar & Others (2013) 8 SCC 633.]

[(4) Dr. J. Vijayan & Others v. The State of Kerala & Others (Civil Appeal No. 5037 of 2022 decided on 02.08.2022).]

[(5) Anil Kumar V