Gauhati High Court
WA/143/2018 on 8 February, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010104432018
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
Writ Appeal No.143 of 2018
1. Dr. Sekhar Brahma,
Age about 59 years,
S/o. Late Maheswar Brahma,
Resident of Gwjwnpuri,
P.O., P.S. & Dist: Kokrajhar, BTC, Assam,
PIN- 783370.
2. Dr. Dinanath Basumatary,
Age about 59 years,
S/o. Late Mayaram Basumatary,
Resident of Arbind Colony, Ward No.2,
T.R. Phukan Road, P.O. Dist: Bongaigaon, Assam, PIN-
783380.
............Appellants
-versus-
1.The Bodoland University, represented by the Vice-Chancellor,
Bodoland University, Kokrajhar, BTC, Assam.
2. The Chancellor, Bodoland University, represented by Secretary
to Governor of Assam, Governor's Secretariat, Rajbhawan,
Guwahati-01.
3.The Vice-Chancellor, Bodoland University, Kokrajhar, BTC,
Assam.
4.The Secretary to Governor of Assam, Governor's Secretariat,
Rajbhawan, Guwahati-01.
5. Prof. Pradip Kumar Patra,
Bodoland University,
P.O., P.S. & Dist: Kokrajhar, BTC, Assam,
Page No.# 2/4
PIN- 783370.
6. Dr. Prahlad Basumatary,
Deputy Registrar, Bodoland University,
P.O., P.S. & Dist: Kokrajhar, BTC, Assam,
PIN- 783370.
...............Respondents
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
For the Appellants : Mr. M.U. Mahmud, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1 & 3 : Mr. R. Mazumdar, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.2 and 4 : Mr. K.K. Mahanta, Senior Advocate.
Mr. K.M. Mahanta, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.5 : Ms. S. Kanungoe, Advocate.
Date of hearing of Judgment & Order : 8th February, 2021.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, C.J.)
Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the writ appellants/writ petitioners. Also
heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 3 and Mr. K.K. Mahanta,
learned senior counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 4. Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned counsel appears
for the respondent no.5.
2. The writ appellants before this Court were the writ petitioner nos.1 and 2 before the
learned Single Judge in the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.4187/2017. The case of the writ
appellants/writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that they were the Registrar and
Director, colleges and University, respectively of Bodoland University and since the retirement age
in all the Universities, including the Gauhati University had been increased from sixty to sixty-two
years, their age of superannuation is also liable to be increased from sixty to sixty-two years. For
their benefit they have cited to the two resolutions of the Executive Council of the Bodoland
Page No.# 3/4
University dated 29.07.2015 and 27.11.2015. The said two resolutions had recommended that the
age of superannuation of the writ appellants/writ petitioners be increased from sixty to sixty-two
years. This argument of the writ appellants/writ petitioners, however, did not find favour of the
learned Single Judge for the reasons that the age of retirement must be in the statute. The
statute which was applicable for the Bodoland University at the relevant time still carries sixty
years as retirement age. Moreover, the recommendations which were there in favour of the writ
appellants/writ petitioners were not acted upon in form of any amendment to the statute, nor had
it received any approval of the Chancellor, which was mandatory. Hence, the writ petition was
dismissed with the following observations:
"12. As the sole basis of the contention of the petitioner to assail the communication dated
05.07.2017 is Clause-14 of the regular statute which has not yet been sent to the Chancellor for his
approval as required under Section 32(5) of the Bodoland University Act, this Court for the present
refrains itself from adjudicating the matter as well as from making any observation or expressing any
view on the claim made by the respective parties. It is clarified that whatsoever is recorded
hereinabove, are the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and it does not
convey the view of the Court. As the process of making the regular statute has not been subjected to
the complete procedure as required under Section 32, more particularly the requirement of Section
32(5), it is provided that the Vice Chancellor of the Bodoland University shall forthwith transmit and
place the regular statute before the Chancellor and thereafter the required procedure of Section 32(5)
may be undertaken.
In terms of the above, writ petition stands disposed of."
3. After having heard the learned counsel for the writ appellants/writ petitioners Mr. Mahmud
and the Senior Advocate for the learned Chancellor Mr. Mahanta, we are of the considered view
that no interference is called for with the order of the learned Single Judge as the date of
superannuation has to be determined from the statute. There is still no statute in favour of the
writ appellants/writ petitioners which would grant them this benefit. We are, however, also
conscious of the fact that there has been resolutions of the Executive Council in favour of the writ
appellants/writ petitioners. The resolutions would bring the retirement age of the Registrar and
equivalent posts in conformity with the UGC regulations and AICTE rules. The net effect of this
would be that the retirement age would be increased from sixty to sixty-two years. We dispose of
the present writ appeal with the request to the Chancellor, as the representation is pending with
him, to consider granting approval of the resolutions of the Executive Council and take a decision
Page No.# 4/4
as expeditiously as possible, unless such a decision has been taken already.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
