Summary
A Senior Secretary of a faculty council at Burdwan University, who had sixteen years' teaching experience at a government college in Assam, was denied the benefit of a West Bengal Notification of 24.02.2021 raising the retirement age of certain university officers to 65 on the ground that his ten years' continuous teaching experience was not in a university or college aided by West Bengal. The Supreme Court held that the phrase 'in any State-aided University or College' only distinguishes aided from unaided institutions and does not exclude experience gained outside West Bengal; confining the benefit to in-State experience is an artificial, discriminatory and arbitrary classification.
Issues
- Whether the words 'in any State-aided University or College' in the Notification dated 24.02.2021, read with Section 4 and the definitions in Section 2(a), (cc) and (e) of the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 as amended in 2017, confine the qualifying ten years' teaching experience to institutions aided by the State of West Bengal.
- Whether classifying employees for extension of the retirement age according to whether their past teaching experience was gained inside or outside West Bengal is arbitrary and violates the equality norm.
- Whether the appellant was required to challenge the 2017 amendment introducing the definition clauses before claiming the benefit of the Notification.
Provisions considered
- Section 4 (before and after the 2017 amendment), West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976Both versions of Section 4 are concerned with regular employees in receipt of the notified pay scale holding substantive posts; the words 'in any State-aided University or Government-aided College' in the amended provision only denote that the employer must be an aided institution as opposed to one receiving no aid. Once those conditions are met the State may notify the retirement age. The Notification uses the same expression in the same sense. (¶¶ 11, 12, 16, 18)
- Section 2(a), (cc) and (e), West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976The definitions of 'Government-aided college', 'State Government' and 'State-aided University' introduced in 2017 were relied on to confine the Notification to West Bengal institutions. The Court held that statutory definitions must be read in context, Section 2 itself opening with 'unless the context otherwise requires', and that the submission based on the definition clauses was misplaced given the text, context and object of the Notification. (¶¶ 13, 15, 25, 26, 27)
Held
- The text, context and object of the Notification dated 24.02.2021 show that its purpose was solely to distinguish State-aided from private or unaided institutions, not to exclude employees whose ten years' teaching experience was gained in universities or colleges outside West Bengal; the State and the University wrongly insisted on experience within West Bengal. (¶¶ 3, 16, 18, 27)
- Section 4 of the 1976 Act, both before and after the 2017 amendment, emphasises regular employment in a scale of pay, a notified pay scale and a substantive post; the phrase 'in any State-aided University or Government-aided College' only identifies the employer as an aided institution. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Extending the benefit of a later retirement age to non-teaching posts, for which teaching experience may not even be relevant, while confining the qualifying experience to teaching within West Bengal serves no object; the classification of employees into those with in-State and out-of-State teaching experience is artificial, discriminatory and arbitrary, and the stand of the State and the University is illegal and violative of the equality norm. The State had to place material demonstrating a nexus between in-State teaching and the extended period of service, and there was none. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 24)
- It was not necessary for the appellant to challenge the amended definition clauses, since the conclusion rests on the plain interpretation of the Notification and Section 4; statutory definitions are read subject to the qualification 'unless the context otherwise requires' (Vanguard Fire and General Insurance). (¶¶ 26, 27)
- Parochial executive decisions of this kind, though they appear to be minor errors of perception, undermine fraternity and may trigger similar action by other States; constitutional courts must identify such decisions in the byways of public administration and set them aside. (¶ 3.1)
Result
Appeals allowed with costs of Rs. 50,000; Division Bench judgment dated 13.12.2023 set aside; the University's notification denying the benefit set aside and the appellant declared entitled to the benefit of the Notification dated 24.02.2021.