Summary
The Director of a self-financing minority engineering institute affiliated to JNT University was not entitled to serve until 65. The 2010 AICTE/UGC revision of the retirement age was not adopted by the State, the affiliating university retires its teachers at 60, the appellant did no teaching, and he had accepted retirement by seeking retiral benefits. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the 2010 AICTE and UGC regulations raising the superannuation age of teachers in technical institutions to 65 automatically applied to the Director of a private unaided minority institute affiliated to a State university.
- Whether the appellant, working as Director with administrative duties, was a 'teacher' covered by those regulations.
- Whether the appellant had accepted retirement at 60.
Held
- The 2010 amendments to the UGC and AICTE regulations raising the superannuation age to 65 do not automatically benefit the appellant. The institute is affiliated to JNT University and governed by State law, and the State Government decided by G.O.Ms. No. 40 dated 28.06.2012 not to adopt the higher age in its universities and colleges. The institute is self-financing, run by the Church of South India, and neither run nor funded by the Central Government. (¶ 9)
- Teachers of an affiliated institute cannot have a higher retirement age than teachers of the affiliating university, which retires them at 60; allowing it would create anomaly, discrimination and inequality. The institute had not fixed 65 as its own retirement age either. (¶ 9)
- By continuing to seek retiral benefits such as leave encashment and gratuity after the superannuation notice, the appellant accepted retirement at 60. (¶ 10)
- The AICTE and UGC regulations apply only to those who qualify as teachers and do classroom teaching. The appellant was engaged only in administrative work as Director and led no evidence that he qualified as a teacher. (¶ 10)
- The decisions cited to show that the amended UGC regulations are binding rather than recommendatory were distinguished on facts, and the Court did not examine them further. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upholding the dismissal of the writ petition affirmed, as the appellant had already retired and Respondent No. 4 was working as Director.