Supreme Court Upholds Retirement Age of 60 for Director at CSI Institute Affiliated with JNT University: P.J. Dharmaraj vs. Church of South India & Ors. (2024) INSC 938 (6 December 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 6 December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 938

Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Can an employee of a private educational institution claim a higher retirement age based on central regulations when the state government and affiliating university have not adopted those regulations? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the retirement age of a Director at an institute affiliated with Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU). The core issue was whether the amended regulations of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the University Grants Commission (UGC), which increased the retirement age for teachers in technical institutions to 65 years, would automatically apply to the Director, despite the state government and JNTU maintaining the retirement age at 60 years. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

Case Background

The appellant, P.J. Dharmaraj, was initially appointed as a Lecturer at Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) in 1985 and was promoted to Reader in 1995. On 25 September 1998, the CSI Institute of Technology (CSIIT), the second respondent, issued an advertisement for the post of Director. Dharmaraj applied and was appointed as Director on 26 November 1998. At the time of his appointment, the retirement age as per AICTE and UGC regulations was 60 years.

In 2010, AICTE and UGC revised their regulations, increasing the retirement age for teachers in technical institutions to 65 years. However, the Government of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) did not adopt this amendment. On 14 August 2018, Dharmaraj was relieved from his post as Director, and another individual, Respondent No. 4, was appointed in his place. Dharmaraj then made a representation on 16 August 2018, requesting to be continued in service until the age of 65.

After his representation was rejected, Dharmaraj filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. The High Court upheld the decision that since CSIIT was affiliated with JNT University, which followed a retirement age of 60 years, Dharmaraj could not claim a higher retirement age. This decision was further challenged in a writ appeal, which was also dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, P.J. Dharmaraj, initially filed Writ Petition No. 39511 of 2018 before the High Court against the appointment of Respondent No.4. The High Court disposed of this writ petition on 2 November 2018, directing CSIIT to consider and pass orders on Dharmaraj’s representation dated 16 August 2018, wherein he requested to be continued in service until the age of 65.

CSIIT, in compliance with the High Court’s order, rejected Dharmaraj’s representation on 3 December 2018. Aggrieved by this, Dharmaraj filed Writ Petition No. 45297 of 2018, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on 4 September 2019. The Single Judge primarily held that CSIIT, being affiliated with JNT University, which follows a retirement age of 60 years, could not grant Dharmaraj a higher retirement age.

Dharmaraj then challenged this order before the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 753 of 2019. The Division Bench also dismissed the appeal on 22 November 2021, upholding the decision of the Single Judge. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and applicability of regulations issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the University Grants Commission (UGC) regarding the age of superannuation for teachers in technical institutions. Initially, these regulations prescribed a retirement age of 60 years.

The AICTE and UGC subsequently amended their regulations in 2010, increasing the retirement age to 65 years. However, the Government of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) did not adopt this amendment for its universities and colleges. The relevant government order in this regard is G.O.Ms.No.40, Higher Education & UE-II Department, dated 28.06.2012.

The core legal issue was whether these amended regulations would automatically apply to an institution affiliated with a university that had not adopted the amendment, particularly when the institution was a private unaided minority educational institution.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant contended that his retirement at the age of 60 was premature and illegal.

• He argued that when he was appointed as Director in 1998, his retirement age was determined by the AICTE and UGC regulations, which at that time prescribed 60 years.

• He further submitted that the amended regulations of 2010, which increased the retirement age to 65 years, should be extended to him as professional institutes cannot deviate from binding regulations.

• The appellant relied on the counter affidavit of AICTE to corroborate his stand.

• To establish that UGC regulations are not merely recommendatory, the appellant relied on the following judgments:

  • Islamic Academy of Education and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors [2003 (6) SCC 697]
  • Sreejith P.S. vs. Rajasree M.S. and Ors [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473]
  • Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors [(2015) 6 SCC 363]
  • Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University and Ors [2015 (16) SCC 530]
  • T.M.A Pai Foundation and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors [(2002) 8 SCC 481]

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that CSIIT is a private unaided minority educational institution, administered by the Church of South India, and is affiliated with the State University in Telangana.

• They contended that the subsequent amendment to the UGC regulations had not been adopted by the State of Telangana, and therefore, the revised retirement age of 65 years did not apply.

• The respondents submitted that the appellant was not involved in teaching and was only performing administrative duties as Director.

• They argued that the AICTE regulations use the terms “Teacher” and “Principal” distinctly, and since the appellant did not discharge any teaching duties, the regulations would not apply to him.

• It was further contended that the appellant was due for retirement at the end of February 2018 and until August 2018, he was making representations for academic duties and negotiating for retirement benefits, which indicated that he had accepted his retirement at the age of 60.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the enhanced retirement age of 65 years for teachers in technical institutions, as per amended AICTE and UGC regulations, automatically applies to a Director of an affiliated institute when the state government and affiliating university have not adopted the amendment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases Relied Upon by the Appellant:

• Islamic Academy of Education and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors [2003 (6) SCC 697] – Supreme Court of India
• Sreejith P.S. vs. Rajasree M.S. and Ors [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473] – Supreme Court of India
• Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors [(2015) 6 SCC 363] – Supreme Court of India
• Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University and Ors [2015 (16) SCC 530] – Supreme Court of India
• T.M.A Pai Foundation and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors [(2002) 8 SCC 481] – Supreme Court of India

Legal Provisions Considered:

• AICTE regulations regarding the age of superannuation for teachers in Technical Institutions.
• UGC regulations regarding the age of superannuation for teachers in Technical Institutions.
• G.O.Ms.No.40, Higher Education & UE-II Department, dated 28.06.2012, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) regarding the non-adoption of the enhanced retirement age.

Authorities Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court distinguished the judgments relied upon by the appellant, stating that they were not applicable to the present case. The Court held that the amended AICTE and UGC regulations would not automatically apply to the appellant as the State Government and JNT University had not adopted the enhanced retirement age. The Court also noted that the appellant had not provided evidence to show he was a teacher and that the AICTE and UGC regulations would only apply to those discharging classroom teaching duties.

• The Court found the judgments in Islamic Academy of Education and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors [2003 (6) SCC 697]*, Sreejith P.S. vs. Rajasree M.S. and Ors [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473]*, Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors [(2015) 6 SCC 363]*, Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University and Ors [2015 (16) SCC 530]*, and T.M.A Pai Foundation and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors [(2002) 8 SCC 481]* to be distinguishable on facts.
• The Court considered the AICTE and UGC regulations but held that they would not apply to the appellant because he was not a teacher and was only involved in administrative work.
• The Court considered G.O.Ms.No.40, Higher Education & UE-II Department, dated 28.06.2012, which demonstrated that the State Government had not adopted the enhanced retirement age.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the CSIIT was affiliated with JNT University, which was governed by the laws of the State of Telangana. The State Government had explicitly decided not to adopt the amended regulations increasing the retirement age to 65 years. Additionally, the Court emphasized that the appellant was not a teacher in the traditional sense, as he was primarily involved in administrative duties as the Director. The Court also noted that the appellant’s actions of seeking retiral benefits indicated his acceptance of retirement at the age of 60.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was influenced by both factual and legal considerations. The factual aspects included the appellant’s role as Director, the administrative nature of his duties, and his actions indicating acceptance of retirement at 60. The legal aspects included the non-adoption of the amended regulations by the State Government and the affiliation of CSIIT with JNT University.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the applicability of the amended AICTE and UGC regulations, but rejected them because the State Government and the affiliating university had not adopted the enhanced retirement age. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s role was primarily administrative and not that of a teacher, and that the appellant’s own actions indicated acceptance of retirement at 60.

The Court’s decision was that the appellant’s retirement at the age of 60 was valid and that the enhanced retirement age of 65 years did not apply to him.

The reasons for the decision were:

• “The Appellant was working as Director in CSIIT which is affiliated with JNT University which is governed by the laws applicable in the State of Telangana.”
• “In this case, 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 vide G.O.Ms.No.40, Higher Education & UE-II Department, dated 28.06.2012.”
• “Even CSIIT has not determined the age of retirement of teachers to be 65 years.”
• “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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of the applicable state laws and regulations, as well as the specific facts of the case. The Court applied the principle that the regulations of the affiliating university and the state government would prevail over the central regulations in this context.

The potential implications for future cases are that private unaided minority educational institutions affiliated with state universities will be governed by the retirement age policies of the state and the affiliating university, and not necessarily by the central regulations of AICTE and UGC, unless specifically adopted by the state.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. It applied the existing principles of statutory interpretation and the hierarchy of regulations.

The Court analyzed the arguments for and against the applicability of the amended regulations, ultimately rejecting the appellant’s arguments based on the specific facts of the case and the applicable state laws.

Key Takeaways

• The retirement age for employees of private educational institutions affiliated with state universities is governed by the state laws and the policies of the affiliating university.
• Central regulations issued by AICTE and UGC regarding the retirement age of teachers will not automatically apply if the state government and affiliating university have not adopted them.
• The nature of the employee’s role (teaching vs. administrative) is a crucial factor in determining the applicability of regulations pertaining to teachers.
• An employee’s conduct, such as seeking retiral benefits, may be considered as an indication of acceptance of the existing retirement age.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than dismissing the appeal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the enhanced retirement age of 65 years for teachers in technical institutions, as per amended AICTE and UGC regulations, does not automatically apply to a Director of an affiliated institute when the state government and affiliating university have not adopted the amendment. This case clarifies that the state laws and the policies of the affiliating university will prevail over the central regulations in such cases. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the case reinforces the principle of state autonomy in matters of education and the importance of the specific role of an employee in determining the applicability of regulations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the appellant’s retirement at the age of 60 was valid. The Court reasoned that the amended AICTE and UGC regulations increasing the retirement age to 65 years did not automatically apply to the appellant, as the State Government of Telangana and JNT University had not adopted these amendments. The Court also emphasized that the appellant’s role was primarily administrative and not that of a teacher.