MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, SHUBHA MEHTA
Ashok Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
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
Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for Technical Education (2013) 3 SCC 385
Anil Kumar Vitthal Shete v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 12 SCC 148
B. Bharat Kumar v. Osmania University (2007) 11 SCC 58
Dr. Professor Rajendra Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 13 SCC 278
Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar (2013) 8 SCC 633
SK. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India (2022) 12 SCC 1
State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (1995) 4 SCC 104
State of U.P. v. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. (1991) 4 SCC 139
Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India (2021) 6 SCC 568
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.
The court established that AICTE Regulations, particularly regarding the age of superannuation for faculty, are mandatory and must be adhered to by recognized institutions, prevailing over conflictin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the AICTE Regulations, UGC Regulations, and Council of Architecture Regulations are applicable to the age of superannuation of faculty members....
AICTE regulations mandating a retirement age of 65 for faculty are statutory and binding on all institutions, including private ones.
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.