Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. G.R. Bharath Sai Kumar, was appointed as a Lecturer on 01.04.1985 at Siddaganga Institute of Technology, a private unaided engineering college affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University. He was promoted to Professor. The Institute issued a memo on 03.12.2019 listing staff retiring in 2020, including the petitioner at Sl.No.17, with retirement on 31.12.2020 upon attaining 60 years. The petitioner challenged this memo, contending that as a Professor, he was entitled to continue up to 65 years as per AICTE regulations. The AICTE had issued regulations under the AICTE Act, 1987, prescribing 65 years as the age of superannuation for faculty. The State Government had also issued a notification on 01.03.2019 adopting the same. The Institute argued that it was a private unaided institution and not bound by AICTE regulations regarding superannuation age, and that its own rules prescribed 60 years. The Court analyzed the AICTE Act, particularly Section 10, and held that AICTE regulations are statutory and binding on all technical institutions, including private unaided colleges. The Court rejected the argument that the regulations were only directory, noting that the AICTE has the power to prescribe minimum qualifications and service conditions. The Court also noted that the Institute had been following AICTE norms for other purposes. The Court quashed the memo and directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service until the age of 65 years, with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Superannuation Age - AICTE Regulations - Binding Nature - The issue was whether AICTE regulations prescribing 65 years as the age of superannuation for faculty are binding on private unaided engineering colleges - The Court held that AICTE regulations are statutory and binding on all technical institutions, including private unaided colleges, and the petitioner was entitled to continue up to 65 years (Paras 1-30). B) Education Law - AICTE Act, 1987 - Section 10 - Power to Regulate - The Court examined the scope of Section 10 of the AICTE Act and held that the AICTE has the power to prescribe service conditions including age of superannuation for faculty in technical institutions - The regulations are mandatory and not merely directory (Paras 15-25). C) Constitutional Law - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ Jurisdiction - The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the memo retiring the petitioner at 60 years and directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service until the age of 65 years, as per AICTE norms (Paras 28-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the AICTE regulations prescribing the age of superannuation as 65 years for faculty members are binding on private unaided engineering colleges, and whether the petitioner, a Professor, is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 65 years.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The memo dated 03.12.2019 is quashed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service until the age of 65 years, with all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- AICTE regulations binding on all technical institutions
- superannuation age for faculty
- applicability of AICTE norms to private unaided colleges
- retrospective effect of regulations
- doctrine of legitimate expectation
