The Supreme Court ruled that UGC/AICTE regulations on the 65-year retirement age do not apply to state university-affiliated institutions unless the state adopts them, dismissing the plea for higher retirement age.
The Supreme Court of India ruled on December 6, 2024, that the UGC/AICTE regulations raising the retirement age to 65 years do not automatically apply to institutions affiliated with state universities unless the State Governmentchooses to adopt these regulations. The Court clarified that such institutions must adhere to the retirement age norms prescribed by the state, which in this case was 60 years. This ruling came during a civil appeal involving a former Director of an institution affiliated with Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU), Telangana.
Case Background: P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India & Ors.
- The appellant, P.J. Dharmaraj, was appointed as a Lecturer and Reader in JNTU before serving as the Director of the Church of South India Institute of Technology (CSIIT).
- He retired at the age of 60 years in line with state regulations.
- Two days after his retirement, UGC and AICTE amended regulations to raise the retirement age to 65 years. Dharmaraj claimed the revised retirement age should apply to him.
Respondents’ Arguments
- The respondents argued that the State of Telangana had not adopted the amended UGC/AICTE regulations.
- The retirement age for teachers in JNTU and its affiliated institutions, including CSIIT, remained 60 years.
- Granting an exception to the appellant would create anomalies and inequality.
Supreme Court’s Observations
- State Adoption Required: The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale ruled that the retirement age for state-affiliated institutions remains 60 years unless the state government adopts the revised UGC/AICTE regulations.
- “If the State Government itself has not adopted the amended regulations, the same cannot be applicable to the CSIIT.”
- No Special Treatment: The Court stated that giving the appellant special consideration would lead to discrimination:
- “When the teachers of JNT University are only to continue up to the age of sixty years, the Appellant cannot be given special consideration.”
- The Court further noted that the appellant held an administrative position and did not perform teaching duties after becoming Director.
- “AICTE and UGC regulations are applicable only to those who qualify as teachers and are discharging classroom teaching duties.”
Key Takeaways
- Regulatory Limits: UGC/AICTE regulations do not apply universally to state-affiliated institutions unless specifically adopted by the state government.
- Administrative Roles Excluded: The revised retirement age benefits only those who actively discharge teaching duties.
- Consistency in Policy: The decision ensures uniformity and avoids discrimination within state university systems.
Case: P.J. DHARMARAJ VERSUS CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA & ORS.
