Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 January, 2023
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Rajendra Prakash Soni
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 932/2023
Sunil Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary, on behalf of
Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG
Mr. Sunil Joshi for R-2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Order
30/01/2023
Shri Sunil Joshi, Advocate, puts in appearance on
behalf of the contesting respondent No.2, i.e. the M.B.B.
University, Jodhpur. Shri Kailash Choudhary, associate to Shri
Manish Vays, learned AAG, puts in appearance on behalf of the
respondent No.1.
Shri Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel representing
the petitioner, submits that there is a grave urgency in the matter.
He urged that the writ petition herein has been filed for
challenging the provisions contained in Section 31 of the M.B.M.
University Act, 2021, whereby the age of retirement of the
employees connected with Technical Education employed in the
M.B.M. University has been fixed at 60 years in contravention to
the AICTE Act, 1987 and the AICTE Regulations of 2010 and 2019.
He urged that the age of retirement of the teachers imparting
technical education is governed by the AICTE Regulations, 2019.
(2 of 3) [CW-932/2023]
Drawing the court's attention to Clause 2.12 of the AICTE
Regulations, 2019, he urged that Section 31 of the M.B.M.
University Act, 2021 is in clear contravention of the above
regulatory provisions governing the field. The petitioners, who are
nearing the age of 60 years, would be retired prematurely, even
though they are entitled to continue in service till they attain the
age of 65 years. He further submitted that there is a grave
shortage of experienced faculty members in the University and
thus, the education of the ongoing student batches will be
seriously compromised if the petitioners are made to
superannuate on attaining the age of 60 years. Learned counsel
for the petitioners, in support of his contentions, placed reliance
on the judgment of this court in Dr. Ranjan Mathur Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6312/2022
decided on 15.09.2022].
Shri Sunil Joshi, Advocate, representing the respondent
University, prays for time to file reply. However, he is also not in a
position to dispute the fact that the age of retirement in the
institutions imparting technical education has to be fixed in
accordance with the AICTE Act and the Regulations referred to
supra. He also does not dispute the fact that the language of
Section 31 of the M.B.M. University Act, which reads as below,
clearly reads that it shall be subservient to the provisions of
statutes, directions or policy of the State Government :
31- lsokfuo`fRr dh vk;q-& ifjfu;eksa esa fdlh Hkh izfrdwy
mica/k ds ;k bl lEcU/k esa jkT; ljdkj ds fdUgh Hkh
funsZ'kksa ;k uhfr ds v?;/khu jgrs gq,] fo'ofon~;ky; ds leLr
(3 of 3) [CW-932/2023]
deZpkjh lkekU;r% lkB o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr djus ij lsokfuo`Rr
gksaxs A
It is also not disputed that the University is facing grave shortage
of experienced teachers and in case, the petitioners herein are
superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, filling their
positions will be an extremely onerous task. In view of the facts
noted above, while reserving the right of the respondents to move
for stay vacation, if so desired, it is directed that till the next date
of listing, the petitioners shall not be superannuated from their
post and shall continue to serve the University in the
capacity/position on which they are working as on date.
Renotify on 20.03.2023.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
16-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
