Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of P.J. Dharmaraj, who was the Director of CSI Institute of Technology (CSIIT), a private unaided minority educational institution affiliated with Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU). The appellant was initially appointed as Director in 1998 when the age of superannuation was 60 years under AICTE/UGC regulations. In 2010, AICTE and UGC amended their regulations to increase the retirement age to 65 years for teachers in technical institutions. However, the State of Telangana (formerly Andhra Pradesh) did not adopt this amendment, as evidenced by G.O.Ms.No.40 dated 28.06.2012. The appellant was relieved from service on 14.08.2018 upon attaining age 60. He made representations seeking continuation until 65, which were rejected. The Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court dismissed his writ petitions, holding that the affiliating university's retirement age of 60 applied. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions, reasoning that the amended regulations were not automatically applicable to affiliated colleges where the State had not adopted them. The Court also noted that the appellant was not a teacher but an administrator, and his acceptance of retiral benefits indicated acquiescence to retirement at 60. The appeal was dismissed, and the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Director was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Age of Superannuation - Applicability of AICTE/UGC Regulations - The appellant, a Director of CSIIT, claimed benefit of enhanced retirement age of 65 years under amended AICTE/UGC regulations. The Court held that since the State of Telangana had not adopted the amendment via G.O.Ms.No.40 dated 28.06.2012, and the affiliating university (JNTU) followed 60 years, the appellant could not claim higher retirement age. The regulations are not automatically binding on affiliated colleges where the State has not adopted them. (Paras 9-10) B) Service Law - Teacher vs. Administrator - Applicability of AICTE/UGC Regulations - The appellant was a Director with administrative duties and did not prove he was a teacher. The Court noted that AICTE and UGC regulations apply only to those who qualify as teachers and discharge classroom teaching duties. The appellant failed to lead evidence that he was a teacher. (Para 10) C) Service Law - Acquiescence - Acceptance of Retirement - The appellant made representations for retiral benefits like leave encashment and gratuity after being relieved. The Court held that this conduct indicated acceptance of retirement at age 60. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, a Director of an affiliated minority institution, is entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years under amended AICTE and UGC regulations, despite the State Government not adopting the amendment.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment. The appellant's retirement at age 60 was valid, and the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Director was confirmed.
Law Points
- AICTE and UGC regulations on age of superannuation are not automatically applicable to affiliated colleges if the State Government has not adopted them
- Age of superannuation for teachers in an affiliated college cannot exceed that of the affiliating university
- Acceptance of retirement benefits can indicate acquiescence to retirement age
- Director not discharging teaching duties may not qualify as 'teacher' under AICTE/UGC regulations
