Ashok N Joshi S/O Narayan Rao vs The Director
2023 Latest Caselaw 2632 Kant

                         -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

      DATED THIS THE     26TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

                       PRESENT:

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

                         AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI. K

        WRIT APPEAL NO.100209/2021 (S-RES)
                         C/W
     W.A. NO. 100177/ 2021, W.A. NO.100186/2021
     W.A. NO.100187/2021, W.A. NO.100188/2021,
     W.A. NO.100189/2021, W.A. NO.100190/2021
            & W.A.NO.100191/2021 (S-RES)

IN W.A.NO.100209/2021

BETWEEN

SRI. R.B. MALIHALLI
AGE 69 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED
KLS GOGTE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
UDYAMBAG, BELAGAVI - 590001.
                                       ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE
    SRI. S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.     THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
       GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
       M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
       BENGALURU - 560 001.
                        -2-


2.   THE DIRECTOR,
     KARNATAKA TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD,
     NEAR MAHARANI COLLEGE,
     PALACE ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.   THE REGISTRAR,
     VISHWESHWARAIAH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
     (VTU), BELAGAVI - 590 001.

4.   THE CHAIRMAN,
     KARNATAKA LAW SOCIETY,
     POST BOX NO. 512, TILAKWADI,
     BELAGAVI - 590 006.

5.   ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR
     TECHNICAL EDUCATION
     7TH FLOOR, CHANDERLOK BUILDING,
     JANAPATH, NEW DELHI - 110 001,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, PGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE & SRI. BASAVARAJ B. KARADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI. ANOOP G. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.108643/2018

AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUDTICE AND EQUITY.

IN W.A.NO.100177 OF 2021

BETWEEN

ASHOK N JOSHI S/O NARAYAN RAO, AGE 61 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED R/O FLAT NO.101,RADHA GOVIND PARK, S.V.ROAD, APARTMENT, BELAGAVI - 590 006.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. D. RAVIKUMAR GOKAKAKAR, ADVOCATE SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD, NEAR MAHARANI COLLEGE, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002.

2. THE REGISTRAR, VISWESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (VTU), MACHHE, BELAGAVI - 590 018.

3. THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA LAW SOCIETY, POST BOX NO.512, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI - 590 006.

4. THE SECRETARY, KARANTAKA LAW SOCIETY, POST BOX NO.512, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI - 590 006.

5. THE PRINCIPAL, KLS GOGTE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, UDYAMBAG, BELAGAVI - 590 008.

6. THE CHAIRMAN, ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE) 7TH FLOOR, CHANDERLOK BUILDING, JANAPATH, NEW DELHI - 110 001

7. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 01.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, PGA FOR R1 & R7 SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE & SRI. BASAVARAJ B. KARADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R6 SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2020 IN W.P. NO.114853/2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE AND ETC.

IN W.A.NO.100186/2021

BETWEEN

MADHAV S/O DATTATRAYA DESHPANDE

AGE 60 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: 766/1B, CCB NO.316, 3RD CROSS, BHAGYANAGAR, BELAGAVI - 590 006.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. D. RAVIKUMAR GOKAKAKAR, ADVOCATE SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD, NEAR MAHARANI COLLEGE, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560002.

2. THE REGISTRAR, VISWESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (VTU) MACHHE, BELAGAVI-590018.

3. THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA LAW SOCIETY, POST BOX NO.512, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590006.

4. THE SECRETARY, KARANTAKA LAW SOCIETY, POST BOX NO.512, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590006.

5. THE PRINCIPAL, KLS GOGTE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, UDYAMBAG, BELAGAVI-590008.

6. THE CHAIRMAN, ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE) 7TH FLOOR, CHANDERLOK BUILDING, JANAPATH, NEW DELHI-110001.

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, PGA FOR R1 SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE & SRI. BASAVARAJ B. KARADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R6 SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2020 IN W.P. NO.103782/2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN W.A.NO.100187/2021 BETWEEN

PROF. DATTATREYA S/O. MANAKOJI CHOUDHARI, AGE 61 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, R/O PLOT NO.26, ADARSH NAGAR, 7TH CROSS, HINDWADI, BELAGAVI - 590 011.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. D. RAVIKUMAR GOKAKAKAR, ADVOCATE SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE CHAIRMAN, ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE) NELSON MANDALA MARG, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070

2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING,BENGALURU-560001.

3. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION (DTE) TANTRIK SHIKSHAN BHAVAN, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

4. THE REGISTRAR, VISWESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (VTU), JANA SANGAM,MACHTE, BELAGAVI-590018.

5. THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA LAW SOCIETY, POST BOX NO.512, KLS CAMPUS, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590006.

6. THE PRINCIPAL, GOGTE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, UDYAMBAG, BELAGAVI-590008.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE & SRI. BASAVARAJ B. KARADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R4 SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, PGA FOR R2 & R3 SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED

08.12.2020 IN W.P. NO.106179/2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN W.A.NO.100188/2021

BETWEEN

SHRENIK APPAYYA SUPPANNAVAR, AGE 61 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED MECHANIC, R/O 308, GANAPAT GALLI, MAJAGAON, MANDOLI, UDYAMBAG, BELAGAVI TQ & DIST, BELAGAVI-590006.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD, NEAR PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE REGISTRAR, VISHWESHWARAIAH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, BELAGAVI-590008.

3. THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA LAW SOCIETY POST BOX NO.512, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590006.

4. THE PRINCIPAL, GOGTE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY UDYAMBAG, BELAGAVI-590008.

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, PGA FOR R1 SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE & SRI. BASAVARAJ B. KARADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2020 IN W.P. NO.114531/2019 (S-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITILE FOR ALL SERVICE BENEFITS INCLUDING WAGES AND ETC.,

IN W.A.NO.100189/2021 BETWEEN

SHRI. SHIVAJI, S/O KALLAPPA PAWALE, AGE 61 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED SECOND DIVISION ASST. AT KLS BELAGAVI, R/O BEHIND ST. MERRY ENGLISH SCHOOL H.NO. N/13, ANAGOL,BELAGAVI- 590007.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD, NEAR PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE REGISTRAR, VISHWESHWARAIAH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (V.T.U), BELAGAVI-590008.

3. THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA LAW SOCIETY, RGM5+GHQ, BHAGYANAGAR, ANGOL, BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA-590011.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, PGA FOR R1 SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE & SRI. BASAVARAJ B. KARADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2020 IN W.P. NO.102838/2017 (S-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITILED FOR ALL SERVICE BENEFITS INCLUDING WAGES ETC., AS PER ANNEXURE D AND ETC.,

IN W.A.NO.100190/2021

BETWEEN

SHRI. VITTAL RAYAPPA SAIBANNAVAR, AGE 62 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED PEON-CSE DEPARTMENT, KLS GOGTE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY UDYAMBAG, BELAGAVI-590013.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD, NEAR MAHARANI COLLEGE, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE REGISTRAR, VISHWESHWARAIAH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (V.T.U), MACHCHE AT BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI-590013.

3. THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA LAW SOCIETY, POST BOX NO.512, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590011.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, PGA FOR R1 SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE R2 SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2020 IN W.P. NO.114581/2019 (S-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITILED FOR ALL SERVICE BENEFITS INCLUDING WAGES AND ETC.,

IN W.A.NO.100191/2021

BETWEEN

SHRI. VIVEK V. NADPUROHIT, AGE 61 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED MECHANIC, R/O KAMADENU APARTMENT, BHAGYA NAGAR 7TH CROSS, PLOT NO.9, 1ST FLOOR, BELAGAVI-590016.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD NEAR PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE REGISTRAR, VISHWESHWARAIAH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (V.T.U), BELAGAVI-590008.

3. THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA LAW SOCIETY, BELAGAVI-590008.

4. THE PRINCIPAL, KARNATAKA LAW SOCIETY, GIT, BELAGAVI-590008.

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, PGA FOR R1 SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE & SRI. BASAVARAJ B. KARADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS

HON'BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED

08.12.2020 IN W.P. NO.106753/2018 (S-RES) PASSED BY

THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTIAL

DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS THAT THE APPELLANT IS

ENTITILED FOR ALL SERVICE BENEFITS INCLUDING

WAGES AND ETC.

THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED ON 16.03.2023 AND COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY R.DEVDAS J.,

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGEMENT

These intra-court writ appeals arise out of a

common order passed by the learned Single Judge

and therefore, all these appeals are heard and

disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellants are all employees of the

respondent-Gogte Institute of Technology, run by the

Karnataka Law Society. The appellants were working

as Professors, Assistant Professors, Helpers, Peons,

etc., but their grievance in common is that the age of

superannuation is maintained at 58 years and they

are forced to retire from service accordingly. Their

contention in common before the learned Single Judge

was that the Institution is governed by the regulations

of the All India Council For Technical Education

('AICTE' for short) and in terms of the regulations of

AICTE, more particularly, the AICTE (Pay scales and

Service Conditions) Regulations, 2010, the age of

superannuation should be 65 years. Reliance was also

placed on a Government Order dated 07.03.2011

issued by the Government of Karnataka, consequent

to the revision of pay scales and service conditions

following the recommendations of the 6th Pay

Commission and the regulations of the AICTE.

3. It was contended on behalf of the respondent-

Institution that the employees of the institution are

governed by the rules and regulations of the

Karnataka Law Society and the appellants herein were

appointed to the respective posts in terms of the rules

and regulations of the Karnataka Law Society. It was

contended that in the Government Order dated

07.03.2011 issued by the Government of Karnataka,

Department of Higher Education, it was made clear

that the age of retirement was made applicable to

Colleges owned by the State Universities, Colleges

established by the Government and Private Aided

Engineering colleges only. It was contended that the

respondent-Institution is not an aided institution and

therefore, the Government Order dated 07.03.2011 is

not applicable to the respondent-Institution, more so,

in respect of the age of superannuation. It was

admitted during the course of the arguments that the

management of the Karnataka Law Society had

passed a Board Resolution dated 22.01.2011 resolving

to accept the revised pay scales as per the AICTE 6th

Pay Commission recommendation (excluding

allowances) w.e.f. 01.01.2010. However, it was

contended that the management of the respondent-

Institution did not accept the recommendation, either

of the AICTE or the State Government, in the matter

of enhancement of age of superannuation. The

representations given by the appellants/writ

petitioners were rejected by the respondent-

Institution. The learned Single Judge accepted the

contentions of the respondent-Institution and

dismissed the writ petitions.

4. Learned Counsels for the appellants

Sri.D.Ravikumar Gokakakar and Sri.Hanumantha

Reddy Sahukar, seek to draw the attention of this

Court to a decision of a learned Single Judge in the

case of DR.G.R.BHARATH SAI KUMAR VS. STATE OF

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.15421/2020

dated 24.05.2021, wherein similar contentions were

raised and the learned Single Judge had considered

the issue as to whether the petitioner therein is

entitled to claim that his age of retirement should be

65 years in terms of the regulations of the AICTE.

The learned Single Judge had held that AICTE

regulations notified by the Government of India would

have binding effect on all the Technological

Institutions to whom the regulations apply.

5. However, learned Senior Counsel Sri.Anant

Mandagi appearing for the respondent-Institution

submitted that one of us on the Bench (R.Devdas J.,),

sitting Single, in the case of DR.R.N.BHASKAR VS.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS in

W.P.No.10638/2021 and connected matter disposed of

on 28.04.2022 had considered similar such issue

regarding applicability of the regulations of the

University Grants Commission (UGC for short), more

particularly, the age of superannuation and dismissed

the writ petitions while holding that the regulations of

the UGC in the matter of enhancement of pay scales

and age of superannuation were not forced upon the

respective State Governments and the Universities run

by the State Governments and Institutions affiliated to

the State run Universities. It was held that

acceptance of the scheme proposed by the UGC in its

composite form was rightly left to the discretion of the

State Government. The State Government of

Karnataka, not having accepted the proposal of the

UGC to enhance the age of superannuation, it was

held that the age of superannuation prescribed in the

regulations of the UGC was not applicable in respect of

the Teaching and Non-Teaching staff of Private

Unaided Institutions. Learned Senior Counsel submits

that the ratio laid down in the said case is squarely

applicable to the present set of facts, since the only

difference between the two is that in the present case

it is the prescription and applicability of the

regulations of the AICTE and in that case it was of the

UGC, but without any doubt the issue remains the

same. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit

that the decision in the case of DR.R.N.BHASKAR

(supra), has been upheld by a Division Bench of this

Court in the case of DR.CHIDANANDA P MANSUR VS.

UNION        OF       INDIA         AND      OTHERS,        in

W.A.No.100198/2022            c/w     W.P.No.101937/2022

disposed of on 01.06.2022.

      6.      Heard    the    learned     Counsels   for   the

appellants, learned Senior Counsel Sri.Anant Mandagi

for the respondent-Institution, learned Principal

Government Advocate for the respondent-State and

learned Counsel Sri.Anoop G.Deshpande and

Basavaraj B.Karadi for the AICTE and Visvesvaraya

Technological University and perused the material on

record.

7. The co-ordinate Bench in the case of

DR.CHIDANANDA P MANSUR (supra) has noticed the

fact that the subject or entry regarding the education

figures in List-III, Schedule VII of the Constitution of

India and therefore, the UGC regulations, partaking

the character of Central Law overrides a State made

legislation, however, in the present context the

argument was structured on a wrong premise that the

subject UGC regulations and University statutes are in

conflict with each other and therefore, former being a

Central Law would override the latter which is a State

Law. It was noticed that the conflict can logically arise

only if the Central Law is shown to impose a norm,

without leaving any option whatsoever to the State

Government or its Universities. It was found that the

regulations of the UGC, more so, in the matter of

enhancement of age of superannuation, did not make

it mandatory and on the other hand, it was rightly left

to the discretion of the State Government and its

Universities to enhance the age of superannuation of

its Teaching and Non-Teaching staff.

8. We have to notice on facts that in the AICTE

[Pay scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for

the Teachers and other academic staff in Technical

Institutions (Degree) Regulations], 2010, which were

notified on 05.03.2010, under a separate heading

"Applicability of the Scheme", it is clearly provided

that the scheme shall be applicable to teachers in

Technical Institutions and other equivalent cadres of

Library in all the AICTE approved Institutions. The

implementation of the revised scales shall be subject

to the acceptance of all the conditions mentioned

therein as well as regulations to be framed by the

AICTE in that behalf. It clearly provides that the

scheme may be extended to all technical institutions

coming under the purview of State Legislatures,

provided State Governments wish to adopt and

implement the scheme subject to the terms and

conditions provided therein. Therefore, we have no

hesitation to hold that as was found in the case of the

UGC and its Regulations, in the Regulations of the

AICTE also, there is no compulsion of implementation

of the pay scales and service conditions on the State

Governments and the Universities run by the State

Governments. We therefore proceed to hold that the

issue regarding enhancement of age of

superannuation in terms of the Regulations, stands

squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate

Bench in the case of Dr.Chidananda P.Mansur

(supra).

9. We also deem it necessary to reiterate the

fact and legal position as to whether the AICTE or the

UGC could enforce upon the State Governments, its

Universities and the Institutions affiliated to the State

Universities, any provision touching upon the service

conditions of the Teaching and Non-teaching staff.

Having regard to the law declared in the case of

I.N.Saksena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1976)

4 SCC 750, adverting to Entry 41, List II, it was held

that within its allotted sphere, the State Legislature

has, by virtue of Article 246(3), exclusive, plenary

powers of legislation in the matter of regulating

recruitment and conditions of service of persons

appointed to such service and posts in connection with

the affairs of the State. Entry 41 of List II covers

"State Public Services; State Public Service

Commission". On the other hand, Entry 70 of List I

covers "Union Public Services; All India Services;

Union Public Service Commission". Having regard to

the specific entries in List I and List II pertaining to

Public Services, each word employed in Article 309

take their colour. Article 309 provides that acts of

appropriate legislature may regulate the recruitment

and conditions of service of persons appointed to

Public Services and posts in connection with the affairs

of the Union or of any State. Age of superannuation,

undoubtedly being a service condition, all State

Government employees and persons governed by the

State Legislations can be regulated only by the State

Legislation. This is probably the reason why the

regulations of the UGC and AICTE do not unilaterally

enforce upon the State Universities and Institutions

affiliated to the State Universities any provision

touching upon the pay scales, age of retirement and

such other conditions of service.

10. The argument regarding the rule of

repugnancy in terms of Article 254 of the Constitution

would also not apply in the present context, since the

application of the rule of repugnancy would arise in

respect of law made touching upon matters

enumerated in the concurrent list (List III), which is

not so in the present case.

11. The argument that since the respondent-

Institution is a private unaided institution, it would fall

directly under the control of the AICTE and therefore,

its Regulations would become applicable, also cannot

be countenanced. The respondent-institution is

affiliated to the Visvesvaraya Technological University.

Insofar as institutions receiving grants from the

University Grants Commission (UGC), the finding in

the case of Dr.R.N.Bhaskar (supra), that the

Regulations of the UGC specifies the consequences of

non-compliance of the recommendation of the

Commission by such institutions has been upheld by

the co-ordinate Bench. It was held that the

consequences befall only such of the institutions which

receive grants from the UGC and it was for the UGC to

take action. However, in the present case, there is no

pleading from the appellants that AICTE gives grants

or that the respondent-institution receives grants from

the AICTE. Therefore, such a contention at the hands

of the appellants is required to be rejected and is

accordingly rejected.

12. For the reasons stated above, we are of the

considered opinion that the prayer made by the

appellants/writ petitioners regarding enhancement of

the age of superannuation in terms of the Regulations

of the AICTE cannot be granted. For the same reason,

we proceed to uphold the decision of the learned

Single Judge.

13. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are

dismissed.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not

survive for consideration and accordingly, the same

stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

DL/JT