Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court disposed of a batch of writ petitions involving a challenge to clause 11(5) of the Government Resolution dated 5 March 2011, which imposed a precondition on non-government institutions to issue at least two public advertisements before the case of an incumbent Principal could be referred to the Performance Review Committee for extension of age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years. The petitioners, mostly Principals of non-government institutions, argued that this condition was discriminatory because it was not initially applied to government institutions, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. They contended that service conditions were virtually identical for both sets of Principals, being governed by UGC Regulations, and no rational basis existed for the differential treatment. Some petitioners also sought relaxation from the Ph.D. requirement under clause 11(3) of the same GR, relying on a previous decision in Satish Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, which had granted such relaxation to Assistant Professors. The State, represented by the learned AGP, and the institution in one petition (Akole Taluka Education Society) argued that the challenge had become infructuous after a Corrigendum dated 9 May 2014 extended the very same condition to government institutions, thus removing any discrimination. They further submitted that the Ph.D. requirement was mandatory and upheld by a Division Bench in Satish Agarwal, which did not extend relaxation to Principals. Additionally, they alleged that one of the petitioners, Khandge, had committed fraud by falsely claiming to hold a Ph.D. and by misleading the Court to obtain interim orders. The Court framed the core legal issue as whether clause 11(5) violated Article 14. It noted that the Supreme Court had earlier directed these petitions to be transferred to the Principal Seat for final disposal. After hearing submissions, the Court held that in light of the Corrigendum, the condition was now uniformly applicable to both government and non-government institutions, and thus there was no question of discrimination. Even otherwise, the Court rejected the discrimination argument, emphasizing that public advertisement is a settled method to ensure equality of opportunity and transparency in public employment, which serves public interest. The challenge to clause 11(5) was therefore dismissed. The Court also noted the earlier binding precedent of Satish Agarwal upholding the Ph.D. requirement, and directed that Khandge's petition be dismissed due to lack of qualification and the fraud practiced. All petitions were finally disposed of with the above findings.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Equality and Non-discrimination - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - The condition in GR dated 5 March 2011 requiring non-government institutions to make two attempts at public advertisement before seeking extension of Principal's age was challenged as discriminatory. The Court held that after the Corrigendum dated 9 May 2014, the condition became uniformly applicable to both government and non-government institutions, thereby eliminating any alleged discrimination and upholding the validity (Paras 11-12). B) Service Law - Extension of Age of Superannuation - Government Resolution dated 5 March 2011, Clauses 11(3) and 11(5) - The Court found the challenge to clause 11(5) no longer surviving post-Corrigendum. The condition promotes transparency and equal opportunity in public employment. Clause 11(3) mandating a Ph.D. degree was upheld in Satish Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra and applies to Principals; the Court noted that Khandge lacked the Ph.D. qualification and allegedly obtained interim orders through misrepresentation (Paras 8-9). C) Practice and Procedure - Fraud on Court - Implications - Allegations were raised that Khandge practiced fraud by falsely claiming a Ph.D. and misled the Court to secure interim orders. The Court observed that such conduct vitiates proceedings and any benefits obtained, directing that necessary orders for restitution be made (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether clause 11(5) of GR dated 5 March 2011, which mandates at least two public advertisement attempts before referring cases of incumbent Principals to Performance Review Committee for extension of age of superannuation, is discriminatory against non-government institutions and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Final Decision
Challenge to clause 11(5) fails; condition now uniformly applicable to government institutions after Corrigendum; no Article 14 violation; Khandge's petition dismissed for non-compliance with Ph.D. requirement and fraud
Law Points
- Equality of opportunity in public employment
- requirement of public advertisement for transparency
- non-discrimination after uniform application of condition
- validity of service conditions
