The age of superannuation for the Appellant remains sixty years as the amended regulations were not adopted by the State, and his administrative role did not qualify him for the extended age limit.

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal before us is arising out of a judgement passed by the High Court of Telangana on 22.11.2021 in Writ Appeal 753 of 2019 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has upheld the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court dated 04.09.2019 in W.P.No.45297 of 2018 whereby the Appellant’s Writ Petition was dismissed wherein he was contesting his retirement from the Respondent No.2 Institute which took effect from 14.08.2018 and the appointment of Respondent No.4 in his place.

Aggrieved by this, the Appellant is before us.

3. The facts of the case are such that the Appellant before us was initially appointed as Lecturer in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological (JNT) University in 1985. He was eventually promoted as Reader in 1995. CSI Institute of Technology (CSIIT), Respondent No.2 issued an advertisement dated 25.09.1998 for the post of Director. The Appellant applied against the said advertisement and was selected and appointed as Director vide appointment letter dated 26.11.1998. At the time that the appointment letter was issued to the Appellant, the age of superannuation according to the All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE) and University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations was sixty years. These regulations were revised vide AICTE notification dated 22.01.2010 and UGC regulations dated 18.09.2010 wherein the age of superannuation for teachers in Technical Institution was enhanced to sixty-five years.

4. During his stint of Director at CSIIT the appellant claims to have been promoted to the post of Professor. On 14.08.2018, the Appellant was relieved from the post of Director and Respondent No.4 was appointed in his place. Two days later, on 16.08.2018, the Appellant made a representation praying that he be continued in service until the age of sixty-five. Appellant filed Writ Petition No.39511 of 2018 before the High Court against the entrustment of work to Respondent No.4. The High Court vide order dated 02.11.2018 disposed of this Writ Petition directing CSIIT to consider and pass orders on Appellant’s representation dated 16.08.2018. CSIIT in compliance of the order ultimately rejected the Appellant’s representation on 03.12.2018. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed Writ Petition No.45297 of 2018 which was dismissed by the Single Judge vide order dated 04.09.2019 primarily on the ground that CSIIT is affiliated with JNT University which is following sixty years to be the age of superannuation and therefore the Appellant cannot expect to be continued in service up to sixty-five years of age. This order was further challenged by the Appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.753 of 2019 which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.11.2021.

5. We have heard Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and learned senior counsels, Shri Vinay Navare and Shri J.Prabhakar appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsels Shri Ravinder Agarwal and Shri Harish Pandey appearing for Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.6 respectively.

6. The submissions advanced for the Appellant are that he has been retired from service on a premature and illegal basis as effected by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is contended that when the Appellant was appointed to the post of Director in the year 1998, his age of superannuation was determined as per the AICTE and UGC regulations prevailing at that time, which was sixty years of age. However, seeing that in 2010, AICTE and UGC issued amended regulations, wherein the age of superannuation was revised up to sixty-five years of age, the same benefit should be extended to the Appellant now as professional institutes cannot depart from such binding regulations. This stand has been corroborated by AICTE; Respondent No.6 vide their Counter Affidavit as well. To establish that UGC regulations are not merely recommendatory, reliance has been placed on the