Honble KESHOTE, J.–The learned Single Judge, under its order, dated 9.8.2000, on having found conflict in two Division Bench decisions of the Court in G.N. Tandon vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1996(1) RLR 538 and Dr. Kailash Chandra Mittal & 5 Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (2000 WLC (Raj.) UC 343), referred the matter to the Larger Bench and the question framed for consideration thereof is whether Ordinance 67-A of the Rajasthan University Ordinances (for short, "the Ordinances"), will prevail or the employees will be governed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1989") and the Rajasthan Grant-in-Aid to Education and Cultural Institutions Rules, 1963 (for short, "the Rules, 1963"). Though it is not specifically stated in the question but from the facts of the case, which have come on the record, we find that the dispute relates to the age of superannuation of the teachers in the Non-Government Recognised Affiliated Aided Colleges in the State of Rajasthan.

(2). For adjudication of the question referred to hereinabove the facts necessary for the decision of the case to be noticed briefly are recorded as follows:-

(3). Respondent No.2, Seth Juthalal Education Society, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as `the Society) is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1958. Seth Motilal P.G. College, Jhunjhunu (for short, `the College) is an educational institution established and controlled by the Society and the College is a non-Government recognised and educational institution which is managed and controlled by the governing body of the Society. The annual budget of the college runs into several lacs and 90% thereof is admittedly contributed by the State of Rajasthan by way of grant-in-aid.

(4). The petitioner was initially appointed as a Teacher in the Seth Motilal High School. The School attained the status of an Inter College and later it was upgraded as a P.G. College. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer (Commerce) in the College. At the time of entry of the petitioner in the service as Lecturer (Commerce), on 5.7.1958, he executed an agreement in favour of the College which is alleged to have been executed in pursuance of the Statute incorporated under Clause 30(iv) and Ordinance 67 of the Rajputana University Hand Book Part II, 1951 Edition. Clause 3 of the agreement aforesaid reads as under,–

``That the age of superannuation will be 60 years, the actual time of retirement shall be the 30th day of June following attaining of that age.

(5). The petitioner alleged that his appointment in the College as Lecturer (Commerce) vide order, dated 21.7.1958, was subjected to confirmation by the University of Rajasthan and regulated under the Rules and Regulations of he Institution. The petitioner averred that as per Clause 3 of the agreement, dated 5.7.1958, he has to remain in service of the college till he attains the age of 60 years and the actual time of retirement shall be the 30th day of June following attaining of that age and further in terms of Rule 3(16) of the Rules, 1963 the petitioner was not required to apply for extension of his period of retirement to 60 years from 58 years but since in the past, the teachers had applied for extension of their period of retirement, under misconception of law, he applied under the Rules, 1963 for extension of the period of his retirement vide application dated 7.10.1979. The Principal of the College, vide his letter, dated 9.4.1990, informed the petitioner that the governing body of the college has rejected his application aforesaid, for extension of the period of his retirement. It is stipulated in the said letter that the petitioner will retire on attaining the superannuation age of 58 years. It is further stated that since the petitioner will attain the superannuation age of 58 years on 9.4.1990, he will, therefore, be retired on 30.4.1990. The reason assigned for non- extension of the retirement age

Click Here to Read the rest of this document