Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR
Kaptan Singh Sengar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through the Development Commissioner, Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request to quash retirement decision. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner argues against discriminatory retirement age. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondents defend retirement age based on roles. (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 4. court reviews arguments and notes procedural adherence. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 5. legal tests for classification under article 14. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. court concludes petition lacks merit. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
1. 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 yea
Classification of retirement age between medical and non-medical teachers is justified under Article 14 as it is based on reasonable differentiation of roles and qualifications.
Reasonable classification under Article 14 allows differentiation in retirement age based on distinct roles and qualifications between medical and non-medical teaching cadres.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition of discriminatory treatment based on qualifications, as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The amendment to Rule 56 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, allowing different retirement ages for MBBS and BDS degree holders, was found discriminatory and unconstitutional under Articles 14 and....
Classification based on educational qualifications for promotion is permissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, provided it is reasonable and has a rational connection to the objectives....
increasing the age of superannuation only in the case of Professors, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as alleged, for the simple reason that whereas equals cannot be ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
