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

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 1092

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Kaptan Singh Sengar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Development Commissioner, Jharkhand-cum-Chairman, Management Committee, Ranchi Institute of Neuro Psychiatry & Allied Sciences (RINPAS), Ranchi - Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 1176 of 2021
Decided On : 11-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Adv.
For the Respondent:Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate

Reasonable classification under Article 14 allows differentiation in retirement age based on distinct roles and qualifications between medical and non-medical teaching cadres.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Discrimination in retirement age - The petitioner sought to quash the resolution fixing retirement age for non-medical teachers at 62 years while that for medical teachers is 65 years - The court found that both medical and non-medical teachers are not on the same footing, upholding that reasonable classification is permissible under Article 14, and no arbitrary discrimination was identified. (Paras 13-20)

(B) Judicial Review - Classification - Legal principles established regarding reasonable classification and the requirements of intelligible differentia and rational relation to the object of the classification under Article 14. (Paras 13-16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was an Additional Professor at RINPAS, whose retirement age was set at 62 years according to a management committee resolution, while medical teachers had been granted an extension to 65 years. The petitioner claimed this distinction was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Findings of Court:
The distinctions between medical and non-medical teachers are valid, justifying different retirement ages under reasonable classification without violating Article 14.

Issues: Whether the differentiation in retirement age is discriminatory under Article 14; and the validity of the management committee's resolution regarding the retirement age.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that reasonable classification does not violate Article 14 provided that distinctions are based on actual differences in duties and qualifications, affirming the distinguished roles of medical versus non-medical educators.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to retirement age based on discrimination. (Para 1)
2. petitioner's service history and discrimination in retirement age. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. defendant's justification of rules regarding qualifications and retirement age. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. policy decision on classification between medical and non-medical teachers. (Para 9 , 10)
5. argument against discrimination in retirement age based on qualifications. (Para 12)
6. importance of reasonable classification under article 14. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
7. distinct differences between medical and non-medical teaching cadres. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
8. writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the reasoned order as contained in memo no. 479 dated 02.03.2021 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Director, RINPAS, Kanke, Ranchi, wherein it has been stated in the light of decision taken by the Managing Committee of Ranchi Institute of Neuro Psychiatry & Allied Sciences (RINPAS) that on attaining the age of 62 years, the date of retirement of the petitioner has been considered as 28.02.2021 since the retirement age of non-medical teachers of RINPAS is 62 years. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent(s) to allow the petitioner to continue in the service till he attains the age of 65 years, as the retirement age of medical teachers has been increased from 62 years to 65 years as per resolution contained in memo no. 204 (9) dated 22.09.2014 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the resolution as contained in memo no. 204 (9) dated 22.09.2014 issued by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the age of superannuation of medical teachers of RINPAS has been enhanced from 62 to 65 years, since the same is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in Clinical Psychology vide letter as contained in memo no. 178 dated 25.01.2005. He was promoted to Associate Professor, Clinical Psychology with effect from 01.01.2009 and subsequently promoted to the post of Additional Professor, Clinical Psychology with effect from 01.01.2012. He has been engaged in OPD and Ward Duties since the year 2005 besides teaching as well as research works in RINPAS.

3. It is further submitted that the retirement age of the faculty teachers in RINPAS was increased from 60 years to 62 years vide notification as contained in memo no. 254 (7A) dated 17.07.2010 and thereafter, the retirement age of the petitioner was also increased accordingly. At present, the retirement age of medical teachers of RIMS, Ranchi and RINPAS has been increased from 62 years to 65 years vide resolution as contained in memo no. 204 (9) dated 22.09.2014 and thus, a discrimination has been made by the said resolution between the medical teachers and the non-medical teachers. On perusal of faculty positions mentioned in Advertisement No. DIR/VI/04-01 dated 01.06.2004, it would be evident that the persons appointed as Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and Lecturer in Medical Specialty and Non-Medical Specialty come under one cadre position which includes all teaching faculties. In fact, no difference between medical teachers and non-medical teachers has been shown in the said faculty positions. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that under the new service rules of RINPAS namely, RINPAS Teaching Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Service Condition) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2020’) notified by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand vide notification No. 83(12) dated 06.08.2020

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