P.J. DHARMARAJ vs. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA & ORS.

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolves around the claim of the appellant, P.J. Dharmaraj, who sought to extend his retirement age to 65 years in alignment with AICTE and UGC regulations. The appellant was appointed as the Director of CSIIT, an institution affiliated with JNT University, which follows state government policies on retirement. The primary dispute arose when AICTE and UGC regulations amended the retirement age for teachers in technical institutions to 65 years. However, the State of Telangana did not adopt these regulations, and CSIIT adhered to JNT University’s retirement age of 60 years.

The appellant contended that his retirement at 60 years was illegal and premature since AICTE and UGC regulations had revised the retirement age. However, the High Court dismissed his writ petition, ruling that state policies prevail over AICTE/UGC recommendations. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, ruling that the amended regulations were not binding on CSIIT, especially since the state government had not adopted them. Moreover, the Court emphasized that the appellant was not engaged in teaching duties and thus did not qualify under AICTE/UGC regulations. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Keywords:

  1. Retirement age
  2. Age of superannuation for teachers
  3. AICTE and UGC regulations
  4. Minority Educational Institution
  5. Discrimination in service laws

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:

P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India & Ors.

ii) Case Number:

Civil Appeal No. 14029 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date:

06 December 2024

iv) Court:

Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:

Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prasanna B. Varale

vi) Author:

Justice Vikram Nath

vii) Citation:

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 374 : 2024 INSC 938

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

  • AICTE Notification (22.01.2010)
  • UGC Regulations (18.09.2010)
  • Government of Andhra Pradesh G.O.Ms.No.40, Higher Education & UE-II Department (28.06.2012)
  • Service Laws on Superannuation

ix) Judgments Overruled by This Case (if any):

None

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subject:

Service Law, Constitutional Law, Education Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The core issue in this case pertained to whether an affiliated private minority institution could independently adopt AICTE/UGC’s revised superannuation age of 65 years, despite the state government maintaining 60 years as the retirement age. The appellant, a Director at CSIIT, was retired at 60 years, which he challenged. The High Court rejected his claim, holding that AICTE and UGC regulations were not automatically applicable unless adopted by the State Government. The Supreme Court upheld this view, ruling that CSIIT had no authority to unilaterally implement a different retirement policy.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

  1. The appellant was initially appointed as a Lecturer at JNT University in 1985, later promoted to Reader in 1995.
  2. In 1998, CSI Institute of Technology (CSIIT) appointed him as Director via an appointment letter dated 26.11.1998.
  3. At the time of his appointment, AICTE and UGC regulations prescribed 60 years as the retirement age.
  4. In 2010, AICTE and UGC amended their regulations to increase the retirement age for teachers to 65 years.
  5. However, the State of Telangana did not adopt this amendment, and JNT University continued with 60 years as the superannuation age.
  6. On 14.08.2018, the appellant was relieved from his position, and a new Director (Respondent No.4) was appointed in his place.
  7. The appellant challenged this retirement, citing AICTE/UGC norms, but his representation was rejected by CSIIT on 03.12.2018.
  8. The High Court dismissed his writ petition and the subsequent writ appeal, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the AICTE/UGC revised regulations on superannuation age (65 years) were binding on CSIIT?
ii) Whether the State Government’s decision not to adopt the revised age of 65 years was legally justified?
iii) Whether the appellant, as a Director, was covered under AICTE/UGC’s definition of “teacher”?
iv) Whether non-extension of superannuation age to 65 years resulted in discrimination or inequality?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

  1. The appellant argued that AICTE/UGC regulations were binding on professional institutes, including CSIIT.
  2. The appellant contended that educational institutions could not override AICTE/UGC guidelines, making his retirement at 60 years illegal.
  3. AICTE regulations were mandatory, not recommendatory, per the rulings in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697 and Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj (2015) 6 SCC 363.
  4. The appellant had continued administrative work, and his premature retirement violated principles of natural justice.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

  1. CSIIT was a private unaided minority institution and not bound by AICTE/UGC regulations unless adopted by the State.
  2. The Telangana Government explicitly rejected the amendment increasing superannuation age to 65 years, making it inapplicable to CSIIT.
  3. The appellant was a Director (administrator) and not a teacher, so AICTE regulations on teachers’ retirement age did not apply to him.
  4. The appellant had already accepted his retiral benefits, showing he did not expect an extension.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

  1. State Government policies on superannuation prevail over AICTE/UGC norms unless formally adopted.
  2. CSIIT, as an affiliated institution, must follow JNT University’s retirement age policy (60 years).
  3. AICTE regulations apply only to “teachers” engaging in academic duties, which the appellant was not performing.

b. Obiter Dicta (if any)

  • Even if AICTE/UGC norms were binding, the appellant’s lack of teaching duties disqualified him from such benefits.

c. Guidelines (if any)

  1. Affiliated institutions must comply with state-prescribed retirement policies.
  2. AICTE/UGC norms do not override state laws unless adopted through official notifications.
  3. Directors performing administrative functions are not covered under AICTE/UGC teacher benefits.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and ruled that AICTE and UGC regulations do not automatically apply unless the state government adopts them. This reinforces the autonomy of states in regulating service laws within their jurisdiction. The judgment establishes a clear distinction between administrative and teaching roles concerning AICTE/UGC regulations.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

  1. Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697
  2. Sreejith P.S. v. Rajasree M.S. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473)
  3. Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj (2015) 6 SCC 363
Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp