THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.5433 of 2019

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner, as per the writ affidavit, is that he was appointed as a Lecturer in 1984 in6^th respondent-MVSR Engineering College, Nadergul, Hyderabad, and later promoted to Associate Professor under the Merit Promotion Scheme w.e.f. 31-12-1993. He filed the present Writ Petition aggrieved by the notice issued by the Principal vide Ref. MVSREC/B-11/19 dated 23.02.2019 informing that he would attain superannuation on 20.03.2019 and would be relieved on 31.03.2019, despite the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Notification dated 01.03.2019 explicitly prescribing the superannuation age of all faculty members as 65 years under Clause 2.1.2, with a possible extension to 70 years based on fitness and academic contributions. Though the Petitioner obtained a copy of the said Notification only on 09.03.2019 and immediately submitted a representation dated 11.03.2019 requesting withdrawal of the superannuation notice, no action was taken by the respondents.The petitioner earlier faced discriminatory pay fixation despite his 1993 promotion, and led to his filing W.P. No.23767 of 2002 which was allowed by this Court, and similar issues were upheld in W.P. Nos. 5426 and 36492 of 1998 by the High Court of A.P., reported in 2001 (6) ALT 757, directing parity between promoted and directly recruited Associate Professors, based on 5^thPay Revision Commission recommendations; however, pay anomalies remained unaddressed, and juniors were promoted to Professors in 2007 ignoring the petitioner, compelling him to file W.P. No. 101 of 2007 and the same is pending, and no counter has been filed by the College yet. The petitioner iseligible, healthy and willing to serve till 65 years, and any premature retirement would deprive him of five years’ service and related benefits including salary, PF, and gratuity. The College, affiliated to AICTE, is bound by its service regulations under Clause 1.2 and 1.4 of the said Notification. The petitioner therefore seeks a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the notice dated 23.02.2019 as illegal and violative of AICTE Notification dated 01.03.2019, and to consequently direct respondent Nos.5 and 6 to continue him in service till he attains the age of 65 years.

2. No counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 inspite of several opportunities granted by this Court. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4. Counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6.

3. Heard Mr. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. T.S. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitionerwould essentially contend that the petitioner, who was appointed as Lecturer in 1984 and promoted as Associate Professor with effect from 31.01.1993, was illegally retired by the 5^threspondent college through the impugned notice dated 23.02.2019, stating that he would attain the age of superannuation on 31.03.2019, despite being entitled to continue in service till the age of

65 years as per Regulation 2.12 of the AICTE Regulations, 2019, which came into effect from 01.03.2019. It is submitted that the writ petition is maintainable against the private unaided institution as per settled law and precedents including S. Triveni vs Andhra Mahila Sabha, Vasavi College of Engineering vs A. Surnarayana, and Marwari Balika Vidyalaya vs Asha Srivastava, which recognize writ jurisdiction over private educational institutions discharging public functions and governed by statutory obligations. It is argued that the impugned action is not a private dispute but a violation of binding statutory regulations, and the college being a technical institution approved and affiliated by AICTE, is mandatorily bound by its regulations under Sections 10 and 23 of the AIC