Back
IUST Constituent College Teachers Retire at 60, Not 62: J&K High Court Upholds Distinction
In a significant ruling on service conditions of faculty in constituent colleges, the has upheld the retirement of an Associate Professor at the Islamic University of Science and Technology’s (IUST) nursing college at the age of 60 years. The of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani dismissed a petition challenging the decision, holding that the university’s had validly excluded constituent college teachers from the enhanced of 62 years.
The Dispute: A Nurse Educator’s Battle for Parity
The petitioner, Asmat Parveen, was appointed as Associate Professor in the Alamdar Memorial College of Nursing and Medical Technology, a constituent college of IUST, in . She had previously served at , and her past service was counted for . When IUST sought to retire her at 60, she argued that under the , the for Associate Professors and Professors should be 62 years. She also relied on , which originally prescribed 65 years subject to the Chancellor’s assent, and pointed out that other university teachers had been allowed to continue till 62.
IUST, however, contended that nursing faculty in constituent colleges are governed by a distinct regulatory framework. The norms, they argued, prescribe a retirement age of 60 years for such faculty. The university also highlighted that the , in its 10th meeting on , had specifically resolved that the enhanced of 62 years “shall not be applicable to the Constituent Colleges of the University.”
Arguments: Equality vs.
The petitioner’s counsel, , argued that the was arbitrary and violative of . He contended that the petitioner, being a teacher in a constituent college forming part of the School of Health Sciences, should be treated at par with teachers in the main campus. Reliance was placed on the practice in , where nursing faculty retire at 65.
The respondents, represented by Government Advocate , countered that the distinction was well-recognized and based on the and the nature of appointment. They submitted that similarly placed nursing faculty, including Ms. Zamrooda and Ms. Munima Parveen, had been retired at 60. They further argued that the ’s decision had not been challenged, and thus the petitioner was bound by it.
Court’s Analysis: Statutes Govern, Not
The court meticulously examined the statutory framework of IUST. It noted that originally, prescribed retirement at 60. Though amendments sought to raise it to 65, that was subject to the Chancellor’s assent, which was never granted. The Vice Chancellor, using emergency powers, raised it to 62, but the ratified this only for teachers in the main campus, explicitly excluding constituent colleges.
The court observed: “In the absence of any specific challenge laid to the University decision and the consequent University Order dated , the petitioner was bound by the as they existed at the time of her attaining the age of 60 years… The University has thus committed no illegality in retiring the petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years.”
The Bench further clarified that the validity of the itself was not before it. “Whether the of teachers of constituent Colleges for the purpose of a lower age of retirement is legally permissible or not is not the subject matter of adjudication in this petition,” the judgment stated.
Key Observations from the Judgment
The court highlighted that the UGC Regulations and INC guidelines could not automatically benefit the petitioner in the absence of their adoption by the university. The Tribunal had correctly concluded that no such adoption was shown.
The judgment also noted: “The age of superannuation of the University teachers right from the beginning was 60 years. It was enhanced by the to 65 years, but this was made subject to the assent of the Chancellor. The Chancellor never gave the assent.”
Decision and Implications
The High Court dismissed the , upholding both the Tribunal’s order and the university’s retirement order dated . The decision reinforces the authority of university executive councils to differentiate between categories of faculty when setting service conditions, provided such differentiation is based on statutory provisions.
For faculty in constituent colleges of IUST, this judgment means they will continue to retire at 60, unless the or higher authorities alter the policy. The case also underscores that challenges to must explicitly target the underlying that create the distinction.
Case Title: Asmat Parveen v. Islamic University of Science and Technology and Another Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326
