AICTE & UGC Regulations Applicable Only To Those Who Qualify As Teachers & Are Discharging Classroom Teaching Duties: SC
The Supreme Court observed that AICTE and UGC regulations are applicable only to those who qualify as teachers and are discharging classroom teaching duties.
The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the former Director of CSI Institute of Technology contesting his retirement after noting that the Government of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) had decided to not adopt the amendment increasing the age of superannuation to sixty-five in their universities or colleges.
The Court also clarified that CSIIT is an affiliated Institute of JNT University and therefore its teachers cannot have their age of retirement more than that of the teachers of the affiliating University.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prasanna B.Varale asserted, “If the State Government itself has not adopted the amended regulations, the same cannot be applicable to the CSIIT. Even CSIIT has not determined the age of retirement of teachers to be 65 years.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan represented the Appellant while AOR Abhijeet Sinha represented the Respondents.
The Appellant was initially appointed as a Lecturer in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological (JNT) University in 1985. He was eventually promoted as a Reader. CSI Institute of Technology (CSIIT), Respondent No.2 issued an advertisement for the post of Director. The Appellant was selected and appointed as Director. At the time that the appointment letter was issued to the Appellant, the age of superannuation according to the All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE) and University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations was sixty years. These regulations were revised vide AICTE notification in 2010 and superannuation for teachers in Technical Institution was enhanced to sixty-five years.
During his stint of Director at CSIIT the appellant claimed to have been promoted to the post of Professor and in 2018, the Appellant was relieved from the post of Director and Respondent No.4 was appointed in his place. The Appellant’s representation praying that he be continued in service until the age of 65 was rejected by the lower Courts. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court
It was the case of the Appellant that seeing that in 2010, AICTE and UGC issued amended regulations, wherein the age of superannuation was revised up to sixty-five years of age, the same benefit should be extended to the Appellant now as professional institutes cannot depart from such binding regulations.
On the contrary, it was the case of the Respondents that the subsequent amendment to the UGC regulations has not been adopted by the State of Telangana and the revised age of sixty-five years for superannuation does not prevail as the norm in the State and in the JNT University with which CSIIT is affiliated. It was also submitted that the Appellant was never involved in teaching and was only working on the post of Director with administrative duties and if the AICTE regulations were applicable at all, the benefits would still not extend to the Appellant as the said regulation uses the term “Teacher” and “Principal” distinctly.
The Bench, at the outset, observed, “Having considered the submissions advanced, we do not find merit in the contention that merely because the UGC and AICTE regulations were subsequently amended in 2010 and the age of superannuation for teachers in Technical Institutions was increased to sixty-five years, the same benefit would automatically extend to the Appellant.”
It was further noted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) has decided to not adopt the amendment increasing the age of superannuation to sixty-five in their universities or colleges. The Respondent No.2 Institute is a self-financing, Minority Educational Institution administered by the Respondent No.1 Church of South India, and it is neither run nor funded by the Central Government. The Bench further made it clear that the regulations governing the age of superannuation throughout the State, the JNT University and its affiliated colleges including CSIIT is sixty years of age and therefore, when the teachers of JNT University are only to continue up to the age of sixty years, the Appellant cannot be given special consideration.
Noting that the Appellant was given his notice for superannuation, he continued to make representations for retiral benefits such as leave encashment and gratuity etc, the Bench said, “This clearly goes to show that the Appellant has accepted his retirement at the age of sixty. Any other way, the Appellant is not a teacher and was only involved in administrative work with CSIIT. The Appellant has not led any evidence until now to prove that he qualifies as a teacher after becoming Director.”
The Court also highlighted, "AICTE and UGC regulations are applicable only to those who qualify as teachers and are discharging classroom teaching duties."
Thus, noting that the Appellant had already retired, and Respondent No.4 is discharging his duties as Director of Respondent No.2 Institute, the Bench dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title:P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 938
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, AOR Mandeep Kalra, Advocates Anushna Satapathy, Radhika Jalan, Yashas J, Widaphi Lyngdoh, Aditi Gupta
Respondents: AOR Abhijeet Sinha, AOR Ravinder Agarwal, AOR Amit Gaurav Singh, AOR Harish Pandey
