Supreme Court of India
DR. J. VIJAYAN & OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS
- Citation
- 2022 INSC 783
- Decided
- 2 August 2022
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- INDIRA BANERJEE
Holding
State governments are not bound to implement the UGC Regulations' provision on retirement age, as service conditions are governed by statutes under Article 309 and the 2012 circular withdrew the age‑enhancement condition, making the regulation non‑mandatory.
Summary
The appellants, teachers employed in colleges affiliated to the State of Kerala, sought enhancement of their retirement age to 65 years as prescribed in the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2010, which Kerala had adopted but did not implement. They filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court; both the Single Bench and the Division Bench dismissed the petition, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether the UGC Regulations, particularly the provision on superannuation age, are binding on a State Government under the UGC Act, 1956 and the Constitution’s Article 309. Relying on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar and a 2012 circular withdrawing the age‑enhancement condition, the Court held that the State retains discretion over service conditions and the UGC Regulations cannot override state statutes. Consequently, there was no ground to interfere with the High Court’s findings, and the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the UGC Regulations, 2010 mandating a retirement age of 65 years, are binding on the State of Kerala.
- Whether a State Government can override the UGC Regulations on service conditions under Article 309 of the Constitution.
- Whether the 14 August 2012 circular withdrawing the age‑enhancement condition renders the provision non‑mandatory.
- Whether any repugnancy exists between the UGC Regulations and Kerala’s statutes on retirement age.
- Whether acceptance of the UGC composite scheme is a condition for receiving central assistance.
Legislation cited
- University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 20, s. 26
Subjects
University Grants Commission ActUGC RegulationsRetirement ageArticle 309State vs Central jurisdictionHigher education standardsPolicy discretionConstitutional law
Judgment
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1027 1027
DR. J. VIJAYAN & OTHERS A
v.
THE STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 5037 of 2022)
AUGUST 02, 2022 B
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
The University Grant Commission Act, 1956 – ss. 20, 26 –
University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for
appointment of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and
C
Colleges and Other Measures for Maintenance of Standards in
Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (UGC Regulations, 2020) –
Enhancement of retirement age – Adoption under UGC Regulations,
2020 – Liberty of the State to accept or follow the UGC Regulations
– The Ministry of Human Resource Development framed the UGC
Regulations, 2010 – The Government of Kerala adopted and D
implemented the UGC Regulations, 2010 – However, the State
Government had not accepted the condition of enhancement of the
retirement age of the teachers – Aggrieved by the failure of the
State to enhance the retirement age of the appellants, the appellants
filed a writ petition in the High Court – The Single Bench of the
E
High Court dismissed the writ petition – The appeal was also
dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court – On appeal,
held: Clause 6 of the order of the Government of Kerala, expressly
stated that where there were any inconsistencies between Government
order and UGC Regulations, the provisions of the Government order
would over-ride the provisions of the UGC Regulations to the extent F
of such inconsistency – Later on, the UGC Regulations were also
modified by an order of Ministry, whereby the regulation enhancing
the age of superannuation to 65 years was treated as withdrawn –
The Supreme Court unequivocally held in Jagdish Prasad Sharma
that the State was not bound to accept or follow the UGC Regulations
G
– Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent
findings of the Division Bench and the Single Bench of the High
Court – Appeals dismissed – Constitution of India – Art. 309.
Jagdish Prasad Sharma & Others v. State of Bihar &
Others (2013) 8 SCC 633 : [2013] 11 SCR 696 – relied
on. H
1027
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 6 S.C.R.
A P. Suseela & Ors. v. University Grants Commission &
Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 129 : [2015] 5 SCR 643 – referred
to.
Dr. Radha Krishnan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Others
(W.P.(C) No.29253 of 2012 decided by High Court of
B Kerala) – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2015] 5 SCR 643 referred to Para 9
[2013] 11 SCR 696 relied on Para 14
C CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5037
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2017 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No.734 of 2016.
Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Shiv Sagar Tiwari,
D
Liju V. Stephen, Boby Augustine, Yogamaya M.G., G. Prakash,
Ms. Anindita Mitra, Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, Manoj
R. Sinha, Aaditya, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Prashant Padmanabhan,
James P. Thomas, Roy Abraham, Ms. Reena Roy, Ms. Samitharani M.R.,
Akhil Abraham, Himinder Lal, Advs. for the appearing parties.
E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDIRA BANERJEE J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956, hereinafter
F referred to as “the UGC Act”, was enacted to make provisions for the
coordination and determination of standards in universities and for that
purpose to establish a University Grants Commission, hereinafter referred
to as “UGC”.
3. Section 20 of the UGC Act provides:
G
“20. Directions by the Central Government –
(1) In the discharge of its functions under this Act, the
Commission shall be guided by such directions on
questions of policy relating to national purposes as may
be given to it by the Central Government.
H
DR. J. VIJAYAN & OTHERS v. THE STATE OF KERALA & 1029
OTHERS [INDIRA BANERJEE J.]
(2) If any dispute arises between the Central Government A
and the Commission as to whether a question is or is not a
question of policy relating to national purposes, the decision
of the Central Government shall be final.”
4. In exercise of the powers conferred under Clauses (e) and (g)
of sub- section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act 1956, the Ministry of B
Human Resource Development of the Government of India framed the
University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment
of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other
Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education)
Regulations, 2010, hereinafter referred to as the “UGC Regulations”.
C
5. Regulation 2.0.0 of the UGC Regulations is reproduced
hereinbelow :-
“2.0.0 PAY SCALES, PAY FIXATION FORMULA AND
AGE OF SUPERANNUATION, ETC.
2.1.0 The revised scales of pay and other service conditions D
including age of superannuation in central universities and other
institutions maintained and/or funded by the University Grants
Commission (UGC), shall be strictly in accordance with the
decision of the Central Government, Ministry of Human Resource
Development (Department of Education), as contained in E
Appendix-I.
2.2.0 The pay scale shall, in the central universities and other
institutions maintained and/or funded by the UGC, be fixed in
accordance with the pay “fixation formula” developed by the UGC
and approved by the Ministry of Human Resource Development F
(MHRD), as contained in Appendix-II.
2.3.0 The pay fixation formula for teachers shall apply for other
positions in the Library and Physical Education and Sports cadres
in the Central Universities and Colleges thereunder and Institutions
Deemed to be Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met
G
by the UGC.2.3.1. The revised scales of pay and age of
superannuation as provided in Clause 2.1.0 above, may also be
extended to Universities, colleges and other higher educational
institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislature and
maintained by the State Governments, subject to the implementation
of the scheme as a composite one in adherence of the terms and H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 6 S.C.R.
A conditions laid down in the MHRD notifications provided as
Appendix I and in the MHRD letter No.F.1-7/2010-U II dated 11
May, 2010 with all conditions specified by the UGC in these
Regulations and other Guidelines.
2.3.2. Subject to the availability of vacant positions and
B fitness, teachers such as Assistant Professor, Associate
Professor and Professor only, may be re-employed on
contract appointment beyond the age of superannuation,
as applicable to the concerned University, college and
Institution, up to the age of seventy years.
C Provided further that all such re-employment shall be strictly in
accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the UGC, from
time to time.
2.3.3. All other aspects which are not covered in these
Regulations, on applicability, financial assistance, date of
D implementation of revised pay and allowances and payment
of arrears, etc. shall be as laid down in the MHRD
Notifications provided as Appendix-I of these Regulations
and the MHRD letter No.F.1-7/2010-U II dated 11 May,
2010.’’
E 6. The UGC Regulations provided that the revised scale of pay
and other service conditions shall be in accordance with Appendix-I, the
relevant extract whereof is reproduced hereinbelow :-
“APPENDIX I
8. Other terms and conditions :
F
(f) Age of Superannuation:
(i) In order to meet the situation arising out of shortage of teachers
in universities and other teaching institutions and the consequent
vacant positions therein, the age of superannuation for teachers
in Central Educational Institutions has already been enhanced to
G sixty five years, vide the Department of Higher Education letter
No.F.No.119/2006/U.II dated 23.3.2007, for those involved in class
room teaching in order to attract eligible persons to the teaching
career and to retain teachers in service for a longer period.
Consequent on upward revision of the age of superannuation of
H teachers, the Central Government has already authorized the
DR. J. VIJAYAN & OTHERS v. THE STATE OF KERALA & 1031
OTHERS [INDIRA BANERJEE J.]
Central Universities, vide Department of Higher Education D.O. A
letter No. F.I-24/2006-Desk(U) dated 30.03.2007 to enhance the
age of superannuation of Vice-Chancellors of Central Universities
from 65 years to 70 years, subject to amendments in the respective
statutes, with the approval of the competent authority (Visitor in
the case of Central Universities).
B
…
(p) Applicability of the Scheme:
…
(v) This Scheme may be extended to universities, Colleges and C
other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of
State legislatures, provided State Governments wish to adopt and
implement the Scheme subject to the following terms and
conditions:
(a) Financial assistance from the Central Government to State D
Governments opting to revise pay scales of teachers and other
equivalent cadre covered under the Scheme shall be limited
to the extent of 80% (eighty per cent) of the additional
expenditure involved in the implementation of the revision.
(b) The State Government opting for revision of pay shall meet
E
the remaining 20% (twenty per cent) of the additional
expenditure from its own sources.
(c) Financial assistance referred to in sub-clause (a) above
shall be provided for the period from 1.01.2006 to 31.03.2010.
(d) The entire liability on account of revision of pay scales F
etc. of university and college teachers shall be taken over by
the State Government opting for revision of pay scales with
effect from 1.04.2010.
…
(f) State Governments, taking into consideration other local G
conditions, may also decide in their discretion, to introduce
scales of pay higher than those mentioned in this Scheme,
and may give effect to the revised bands/scales of pay from a
date on or after 1.01.2006; however, in such cases, the details
of modifications proposed shall be furnished to the Central H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 6 S.C.R.
A Government and Central assistance shall be restricted to the
Pay Bands as approved by the Central Government and not
to any higher scale of pay fixed by the State Government(s).
(g) Payment of Central assistance for implementing this Scheme
is also subject to the condition that the entire Scheme of
B revision of pay scales, together with all the conditions to be
laid down by the UGC by way of Regulations and other
guidelines shall be implemented by State Governments and
Universities and Colleges coming under their jurisdiction as
a composite scheme without any modification except in regard
to the date of implementation and scales of pay mentioned
C herein above.”
7.The Government of India through the Ministry of Human
Resource Development brought out a circular bearing No. F.1-7/2010-
U.II dated 14th August 2012 under Section 20 of the UGC Act,
paragraphs 4 and 5 whereof read :-
D
“4. After taking into consideration the views expressed by several
State Education Ministers during the Conference held in 2010 the
Central Government has now decided to de-link the condition of
enhancement of age of superannuation from the payment of
Central share of 80% arrears to the States.
E
5. Bearing in mind that the question of enhancement of age of
retirement is exclusively within the domain of the policy making
power of the State Governments, the issue of age of retirement
has been left to the State Governments to decide at their level.
The condition of enhancement age of superannuation to 65 years
F as mentioned in this Ministry’s letter dated 31.12.2008 may be
treated as withdrawn, for the purpose of seeking reimbursement
of central share of arrears to be paid to State University and
College teachers. However, the other conditions as mentioned in
the letters cited above shall continue to apply.”
G 8. The UGC Regulations have to be consistent with the directions
on questions of policy relating to national purposes, as may be given by
the Central Government as per Section 20 of the UGC Act, 1956. In the
case of any dispute between UGC and the Central Government, as to
whether a question is a question of policy relating to national purpose,
the decision of the Central Government prevails over that of UGC.
H
DR. J. VIJAYAN & OTHERS v. THE STATE OF KERALA & 1033
OTHERS [INDIRA BANERJEE J.]
9. In P. Suseela & Ors. v. University Grants Commission & A
Ors.1, this Court held that directions in exercise of powers under Section
20 of the UGC Act are made to provide for coordination and determination
of standards, which lies at the core of the UGC Act. It is, therefore,
clear that any regulation made under Section 26 of the UGC Act must
conform to the directions issued by the Central Government under Section
B
20 of the UGC Act.
10. By a Government Order dated 10th December 2010, the
Government of Kerala adopted and implemented the UGC Regulations,
2010. Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the State
Government had accepted the enhancement of salary grant from the
Central Government, but failed to comply with the condition of C
enhancement of the retirement age of the teachers.
11. Aggrieved by the failure of the State of Kerala to enhance the
retirement age of the Appellants, the Appellants filed a writ petition being
Writ Petition (C) No. 10257/2016(F) in the High Court of Kerala. By a
judgment and order dated 28th March 2016, the Single Bench of the D
High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Appellants filed a writ appeal
being Writ Appeal No. 734 of 2016. The Writ Appeal has been dismissed
by the Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned judgment and
norder.
12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants argued E
that the UGC Act and the UGC Regulations are enacted by the Parliament
under Entry 66 of the Union List under the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution of India, which pertains to coordination and determination
of standards for higher education, research, etc.
13. Counsel further argued that the Pay Revision Commission F
appointed by the UGC, regarding the pay-scale of teachers, eligibility of
appointment, service and working conditions and promotional avenues
of teachers in Universities and Colleges recommended that the age of
superannuation throughout the country should be 65 years. Pursuant to
the aforesaid recommendation, the UGC Regulations, were enacted. G
14. Counsel further submitted that, as per the UGC Regulations, the
salary of the teachers was proposed to be enhanced and in case of such
enhancement, 80% of the enhanced salary was to be paid by the Central
Government and the remaining 20% by the State Government. The
1
(2015) 8 SCC 129 H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 6 S.C.R.
A Regulations also recommended that the age of superannuation of the
teachers should be enhanced to 65 years. The scheme was a composite
scheme which could not be altered or varied in terms.
15. It appears that after the State of Kerala adopted the UGC
Regulations, the teachers of affiliated colleges claimed right of
B superannuation as per the UGC Regulations. However, the contention
was rejected by the Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma &
Others v. State of Bihar & Others2.
16. The Appellants relied upon a judgment and order dated 23rd
February 2016, passed by a Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala in
C Writ Petition (C) No. 29253 of 2012 (Dr. Radha Krishnan Pillai v.
State of Kerala & Others). The Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala
held that irrespective of whether the Kerala University Act or the
Mahatama Gandhi University Act were enacted under Entry 25 of List
III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and irrespective of
the fact that statutes framed thereunder had been amended in line with
D the UGC Regulations, the universities and affiliated colleges in the State
of Kerala were bound to comply with the UGC Regulations in view of
its adoption by the State of Kerala with effect from 18th September
2010.
17. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
E of the State of Kerala argued that the UGC Regulations issued on 30th
June 2010 relate to minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers
and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and other measures
for maintenance of standards in higher education. Regulation 2.0.0 deals
with the pay-scale, the pay-fixation formula and age of superannuation
F etc. Regulation 2.0.0 lays down the revised scale of pay and other service
conditions including the age of superannuation in Central Universities
and other institutions maintained and/or founded by the University Grants
Commission.
18. Mr. Gupta argued that Clause 2.3.1 made it clear that the
G revised pay scale and the age of superannuation may also be extended
to universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming
under the purview of the State Legislature and maintained by the State
Government, subject to the implementation of the scheme as a composite
one in adherence to the terms and conditions laid down in notification
2
H (2013) 8 SCC 633
DR. J. VIJAYAN & OTHERS v. THE STATE OF KERALA & 1035
OTHERS [INDIRA BANERJEE J.]
issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development provided in A
Appendix-1 and in the Ministry of Human Resource Development Letter
No.F.1-7/2010-U.II dated 11th May 2010.
19. On 10th December 2010, the Government of Kerala
implemented and adopted the pay scale with effect from 18th September
2010. Clause 6 of the Order of the Government of Kerala, expressly B
stated that where there were any provisions in the Regulations,
inconsistent with the provisions of the Government Order dated 27th
March 2010, the provisions of the Government Order would over-ride
the provisions of the UGC Regulations to the extent of such inconsistency.
20. In any case, the UGC Regulations were modified by an order of C
Ministry of Human Resource Development dated 14th August 2012,
whereby the regulation enhancing the age of superannuation to 65 years
was treated as withdrawn.
21. Mr. Gupta pointed out that the age of superannuation of
academic and other staff in the institutions in the State of Kerala was D
governed by the Rules issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of
India and such Rules could not be overridden by the Government Order
dated 10th December 2010.
22. In the context of the contention of the Appellants that the
State of Kerala could not have given effect to the pay scales recommended E
by the UGC Regulations, without enhancing the age of superannuation,
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel argued that the adoption of
pay scale by the State Government is not by itself exclusively referable
to the UGC Regulations. The State Government was in any case free to
adopt the pay scales, even otherwise and without reference to the UGC
Regulations. F
23. Refuting the contentions of the Appellants that the State
Government was bound to accept the age of superannuation
recommended by the UGC Regulation since it had to accept the
contribution from the Central Government under the UGC Regulations
for enhancement of salary. Mr. Gupta argued that Central Government G
had itself made it clear that the age of superannuation was not to be
linked to the benefits conferred by the UGC Regulations.
24. Mr. Jaideep Gupta finally argued that the issue is covered
against the Appellants by the judgment of this Court in Jagdish Prasad
Sharma (supra) clearly laying down that the age of superannuation fixed H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 6 S.C.R.
A by the Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India could not be
modified by the Regulations under the UGC Act. Mr. Jaideep Gupta
stated that the argument that the State Government had availed
contributions from the Central Government under the 2010 Scheme was
not correct as recorded in the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court. The Government does not receive any aid from the
B
Central Government for the UGC Scheme. The expenses for salary of
the college teachers are met by the State Government itself.
25. The Single Bench found, and in our view rightly, that there
was no change in the law after the judgment of this Court in Jagdish
Prasad Sharma (supra).
C
26. The Single Bench rightly noted that what was in issue before
the Full Bench was Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act
and the Regulations framed under Clause (g) of Section 26, which dealt
with regulation and maintenance of standards and the regulation of facilities
in the Universities. The Single Bench was of the view that the decision
D could have no application in the case of statutory age of retirement as
determined by the State of Kerala under Article 309 of the Constitution
of India. The prescription of the age of superannuation of a faculty
member could not affect the standards.
27. As found by the Single Bench of the High Court, the decision
E to issue the Circular dated 14th August 2012, withdrawing the regulation
regarding enhancement of the age of superannuation, was taken by the
Central Government, in consultation with the States and in deference to
the powers given to the States to prescribe the service conditions of its
employees, which would fall within the ambit of policy decision,
F undisputedly within the exclusive domain of the respective State
Governments. The Single Bench held that the Policy of the State
Government, which is evidenced by the statutory provisions mandating
teachers of aided affiliated colleges to retire at the age of 56 years, and
that of the Universities at the age of 60 years, has been crystalized by
enactments under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
G
28. The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the
respective parties found, and rightly, that most of the issues raised in the
appeals were concluded against the Appellants by the judgment and
order of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra). The Division
Bench observed that this Court had held that it was mandatory for the
H UGC to be guided by the directions issued by the Central Government
DR. J. VIJAYAN & OTHERS v. THE STATE OF KERALA & 1037
OTHERS [INDIRA BANERJEE J.]
on questions of policy relating to national purposes by discharging its A
functions under the UGC Act. The Division Bench found that the UGC
was bound to follow the directions issued by the Central Government in
view of Section 20 of the UGC Act.
29. The Division Bench of the High Court also found that the State
Governments had the discretion to accept the scheme proposed under the B
UGC Regulations relying on the judgment in Jagdish Prasad Sharma
(supra) and in particular Paragraph 72, thereof. The Division Bench held:-
“14. It is in the light of the above authoritative pronouncement of
the Apex Court, that the present contentions of the counsel for
the appellants are required to be considered. The contention that C
the UGC Regulations were made in exercise of the power under
Entry 66 List I Schedule VII of the Constitution, while the State
enactments are made under Entry 25 List III Schedule VII and
for the said reason, in the event of repugnancy, the Central
enactment would prevail, has to fail for more reasons than one. In
the first place, the State Laws prescribing the age of retirement of D
teachers are made in exercise of the power under Article 309 of
the Constitution. The Apex Court has found Jagdish Prasad
Sharma (supra) that such enactments would remain unaffected
by the stipulations contained in the UGC Regulations. Secondly, it
has been further held by the Court in the said decision that the E
UGC does not have any power to stipulate the service conditions
of teachers. Therefore, such power is vested entirely in the State.
Thirdly, obviously in recognition of the above position of law the
UGC Regulations have conferred a discretion on the State
Governments to decide whether to implement the Regulations or
not. In view of the conferment of the discretion as noted above, F
no question of repugnancy arises in these cases. Therefore, we
do not think it necessary to consider the above contention in any
further detail.
15. On the next contention that the Scheme under the UGC
Regulations, 2010 has to be accepted in full as a composite one G
and that adoption of the Scheme without enhancing the retirement
age of teachers was bad, we find that the said issue has been
concluded by the Supreme Court. Though a similar contention was
put forward in Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra) with respect to the
Government Order dated 10.12.2010, the same did not find favour
H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 6 S.C.R.
A with the Court. The said Government Order evidenced herein as
Ext. P10 in W.A. No. 854 of 2016 provides at paragraph 6 as
follows’’-
6. Government are also pleased to order that where there are
any provision in the Regulations inconsistent with the provisions
B in the G.O. read as 1st paper above, those provisions in the
G.P. would override the provisions in the Regulations to the
extent of such inconsistency.
Reference No. 1 in the said Government Order is to G.O.(P)
NO. 58/2010/H.Edn. Dated 27.3.2010 (Ext.P8 in W.A. No.
854 of 2016). It is the said Government Order that is directed
C to prevail as per Clause 6 extracted above. It has been ordered
by the said Government Order that the age of superannuation
shall continue as at present. In the above context, it is necessary
to notice that as per letter No. F.1- 7/2010-U.II dated
14.08.2012 of the MHRD (a copy of which has been handed
D over to us by the Counsel in the Court), it has been clarified
that the issue regarding age of retirement has been left to the
decision of the State Governments. Paragraph 5 that deals
with the above aspect is extracted hereunder for convenience
of reference :
E 5. Bearing in mind that the question of enhancement of age of
retirement is exclusively within the domain of the policy making
power of the State Governments, the issue of age of retirement
has been left to the State Governments to decide at their level.
The condition of enhancement of age of superannuation to 65
years as mentioned in this Ministry’s letter dated 31.12.2008
F may be treated as withdrawn, for the purpose of seeking
reimbursement of central share of arrears to be paid to State
University and College teachers. However, the other conditions
as mentioned in the letter cited above shall continue to apply.
Though a contention has been put forward by the counsel for
G the Appellants that, the condition has been withdrawn for the
purpose of seeking reimbursement of the central share of
arrears alone, we are not prepared to accept the same in view
of the opening sentence in the said clause which declares in
unambiguous terms that enhancement of age of retirement is
exclusively within the domain of the powers of the State
H
DR. J. VIJAYAN & OTHERS v. THE STATE OF KERALA & 1039
OTHERS [INDIRA BANERJEE J.]
Government and that for the said reason, the issue of age of A
retirement has been left to the State Governments to decide at
their level.
***
17. In the view that we have taken above, we do not consider it
necessary to refer to or discuss the other decisions on which B
reliance has been placed. The question of fixing the retirement
age of teachers is essentially a matter of policy. The said policy
would have to be adopted by the State Government taking into
account a number of factors. As contended before us by the
learned Additional Advocate General, the State of Kerala does
not suffer from a dearth of qualified candidates to be appointed as C
teachers. There are a large number of qualified teachers, including
Ph.D. Holders who are waiting for employment. They are persons
trained in advanced methods of instruction and teaching
techniques. At the same time, teachers like the appellants who
are approaching retirement age are not persons who could be D
described as aged or infirm. They are in their prime of life, endowed
with the rich experience both in teaching as well as in guiding
research projects. The wisdom of the decision to superannuate
them at such a prime point of time in their lives is also questionable.
A decision can be taken only by balancing both the above aspects
as well as other relevant factors that may require to be taken into E
account. Such an informed decision would have to be taken by
the law makers and not by courts. As at present, the UGC
Regulations, 2010 cannot affect the State laws governing the age
of superannuation. UGC Regulations have in recognition of the
above position granted a discretion to the State to take a decision F
with respect to the manner of implementation of the Regulations.
Accordingly, the State Government has decided not to enhance
the age of retirement. We notice that, a similar claim for
enhancement in retirement age has been considered by another
Division Bench of this Court and rejected in Mathai M.M. vs.
Elizabeth Xavier (2011) 2 K.L.T. 468. The said decision is also G
binding on us.”
30. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants referred
to paragraphs 68 and 72 of the judgment of this Court in Jagdish Prasad
Sharma (supra) set out hereinbelow :-
H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 6 S.C.R.
A “68. Another anxiety which is special to certain States, such as
the States of Uttar Pradesh and Kerala, has also come to light
during the hearing. In both the States, the problem is one of
surplusage and providing an opportunity for others to enter into
service. On behalf of the State of Kerala, it had been urged that
there were a large number of educated unemployed youth, who
B
are waiting to be appointed, but by retaining teachers beyond the
age of 62 years, they were being denied such opportunity. As far
as the State of U.P. is concerned, it is one of job expectancy,
similar to that prevailing in Kerala. The State Governments of the
said two States were, therefore, opposed to the adoption of the
C UGC Scheme, although, the same has not been made compulsorily
applicable to the universities, colleges and other institutions under
the control of the State authorities.
***
72. As far as the States of Kerala and U.P. are concerned, they
D have their own problems which are localised and stand on a
different footing from the other States, none of whom who appear
to have the same problem. Education now being a List III subject,
the State Government is at liberty to frame its own laws relating
to education in the State and is not, therefore, bound to accept or
follow the Regulations framed by UGC. It is only natural that if
E they wish to adopt the Regulations framed by the Commission
under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, the States will have to
abide by the conditions as laid down by the Commission.”
31. It is not understood how those paragraphs are of assistance to
the Appellant. There is no finding in paragraph 68, but only discussion of
F facts, which led to the decision, and paragraph 72 is clearly against the
Appellants. This Court unequivocally held that the State was not bound
to accept or follow the UGC Regulations.
32. It is well settled that a judgment is a precedent for the issue of
law, which is raised and decided. Discussions in a judgment cannot be
G read out of context, and interpreted as the dictum of the Court.
33. For the reasons discussed above, we find absolutely no grounds
to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Division Bench and the
Single Bench of the High Court of Kerala.
34. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
H
Ankit Gyan Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "University Grants Commission Act"Sign in to search