THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.753 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated
04.09.2019 in W.P.No.45297 of 2018 passed by the learned
Single Judge.
The facts of the case reveal that the writ petitioner was
appointed initially in the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological
University (JNT University) as a Lecturer in the year 1985 and
was promoted to Assistant Professor/Reader in the year 1995
and to the post of Professor in the year 2000. He left the
services of the JNT University thereafter. The facts further
reveal that on 25.09.1998 an advertisement was issued by the
CSI Institute of Technology/respondent No.2 for filling up the
post of Director. The aforesaid institution was established in the year 1996-97. The petitioner was selected vide proceedings dated 26.11.1998. The appointment order is on record. The petitioner submitted a representation on 16.08.2018 requesting the respondents to continue him upto the age of 65 years keeping in view the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and University Grants Commission (UGC) norms. As nothing was being done, he preferred a writ petition before this Court and the same was registered as W.P.No.39511 of 2018. By way of interim relief, 2 the respondents were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, and after consideration, on 03.12.2018, the respondents rejected the petitioner's representation. The petitioner came up before this Court by filing the writ petition challenging the order of rejection of his representation dated 03.12.2018 claiming continuation of his services upto the age of 65 years.
The petitioner's contention is that the institution in which the petitioner was working is a technical institution and the norms prescribed for teachers and other staff are governed by the AICTE Regulations and the norms prescribed by the UGC. The petitioner by placing heavy reliance on the UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for the appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education, 2010, claimed his continuation upto the age of 65 years as under Regulation 3(i) of the UGC Regulations, the age of superannuation for teaching staff was enhanced in Central Educational Institutions to 65 years. The petitioner also placed reliance upon AICTE Notification dated 22.01.2010 which provided for age of superannuation was enhanced to 65 years. The undisputed facts also reveal that the institution in question, where the petitioner was working, is affiliated to JNT University, which is a technical university granting affiliation 3 to all technical institutions in the State of Telangana and as per the statutes governing the field, the age of retirement of teachers in the entire State of Telangana is 60 years. It is an undisputed fact that the JNT University has not adopted the UGC Regulations nor the AICTE in the matter of age of superannuation and throughout the State of Telangana, the age of superannuation at the relevant time was 60 years only. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and the relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:-
"Counsel for the petitioner also contended that in the impugned rejection order dated 03.12.2018, the respondents, while rejecting the representation of the petitioner, have raised irrelevant issues that the petitioner had indulged in certain irregularities and tampered the records to demonstrate that he has been discharging the duties of a teacher. Counsel further contended that the impugned rejection order also discloses that since the petitioner never discharged the duties of a teacher and was only discharging the duties on administrative side, he was retired on attaining the age of 60 years and the benefit of 65 years cannot be extended to him.
Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 had contended that the petitioner was never appointed as teaching staff and he was only discharging his duties as a Director on administrative side and well in advance before his retirement i.e., in November, 2017 itself, the petitioner was informed that he would be retiring from service on attaining the age of 60 years i.e., in the end of February, 2018 and any service rendered after February, 2018 would be treated as adhoc or extended service and that AICTE and UGC Regulations are applicable only for 4 those involved in classroom teaching in order to attract the eligible persons in teaching career, but not to an individual who discharges duties on administrative side. Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 further contended that respondent No.2 is affiliated to JNTU, and in JNTU, the teaching staff are continued upto 60 years and the Regulations of AICTE have not been implemented in respect of JNTU. Counsel also contended that when the 2nd respondent is only an affiliated Institution to JNTU, the 2nd respondent is bound to follow JNTU norms and accordingly the 2nd respondent has rightly rejected the case of the petitioner to continue him beyond 60 years, therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that when the University to which the 2nd respondent is affiliated is following the age of 60 years as the date of superannuation, the petitioner, who is working in the affiliated institution, cannot claim the benefit of excess age than what is being followed in the parent University i.e., JNTU. Though AICTE has enhanced the age of superannuation in respect of Technical Institutions, the same was not adopted by JNTU and when the staff of JNTU are continued upto the age of 60 years, the petitioner cannot contend that he should be continued upto the age of 65 years in terms of AICTE regulations. A perusal of the appointment order of the petitioner shows that his date of superannuation would be as per AICTE and UGC norms. However, at the relevant point of time, the age of superannuation as per AICTE and UGC norms was 60 years, and the appointment order never said that the age of superannuation would be revised as and when AICTE and UGC norms are revised. So, the benefit of revised Regulations, which are issued by UGC in 2010 and published in the Gazette of India on 18.09.2010, cannot be applicable to the petitioner, who 5 was appointed way back on 26.11.1998, more so when the Regulations of UGC issued in 2010 are not made applicable to JNTU. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs."
In the considered opinion of this Court, the Institution, where the petitioner was working as a Director, is a minority educational institution affiliated to JNT University and the institution is required to follow the statutory requirements including obtaining approval from the Council of Architecture, approval, affiliation only through JNT University. The required norms and the affiliation norms are to be followed strictly and the petitioner was a Director and he was looking after the administrative work. The institution in question is established and administered by a religious and charitable organisation and it is a self-financing institution and it is a minority institution. Undisputedly, the petitioner was involved in non- teaching work. The age of retirement is 65 years only in respect of centrally funded higher and technical educational institutions under the Education Ministry of Central Government, that too for teaching faculty only. The State of Telangana has issued a Government Order vide G.O.Ms.No.40, Higher Education & UE-II Department, dated 28.06.2012 which provides for age of retirement and it is an undisputed fact that the age of retirement in respect of central universities located, if any, in the State of Telangana 6 is 65 years. The institution, where the petitioner was working, is a minority educational institution and not a central institution nor is funded by the Central Government. The statute and the regulations governing the field provides for age of retirement is 60 years throughout the State of Telangana and therefore, the petitioner's case in isolation cannot be looked into as prayed by the petitioner. Otherwise also, the petitioner is not a teacher and by no stretch of imagination, he can be treated as a teacher and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ appeal shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ______________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 22.11.2021 PLN