High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ order or Direction more preferably in the nature of Mandamus declare the relieving order dt.30.03.2019, bearing reference No. MVSREC/BI .1/19 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of regulations of A.l.c.T.E and also Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (TAFRC) guidelines and consequently set aside the relieving order dt.30.03.2019 bearing reference No. MVSREC/BI 1/19- As per Court order dated 10.12.2024 vide l.A.No.1 of 201."4 in W.P.No'5433 of 2019. Prayer is amended. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cor.rrt may be pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith withdraw he notice- No. MVSREC/B-1 1/19, fated 23-2-2019 i:nd continue the Petitioner in service till he attains the Age of 65 years as per the notification of AICTE published in the Gazette of lndia dated 1.3.2019, pending Disposal of this Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURENDER RAO, Sr. COUI'lSEL, REP. FOR SRI T.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI RAMESH BABU VISiHWANATHULA' SC FOR UGC Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI MALIPEDDI SRINIVAS REDDY' SC FOR OU Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Ms. MEGHA RANI AGA\A/ARL' SC FOR AICTE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 & 6: SRI D.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER 1 wp_5433_2019 NBK, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.5433 of 2019 ORDER: The case of the petitioner, as per the writ affidavit, is that he was appointed as a Lecturer in 1984 in6th respondent-MVSR Engineering College, Nadergul, Hyderabad, and later promoted to Associate Professor under the Merit Promotion Scheme w.e.f. 3l-12-1993. He filed the present Writ Petition aggrieved by the notice issued by the Principal vide Ref. MVSREC/B-ll/19 dated 23.02.2019 informing that he would attain superannuation on20.03.2019 and would be relieved on 31.03.2019, despite the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Notification dated 01.03.2019 explicitly prescribing the superannuation age of all faculty members as 65 years under Clause 2.1.2, with a possible extension to 70 years based on fitness and academic contributions. Though the Petitioner obtained a copy of the said Notification only on 09.03.2019 and immediately submitted a representation dated 11.03.2019 requesting withdrawal of the superannuation notice, no action was taken by the respondents.The petitioner earlier faced discriminatory pay fixation despite his 1993 promotion, and led to his hling W.P. No.23761 of 2002 which was allowed by this Court, and similar issues were upheld in W.p. Nos. 5426 and36492 of 1998 by the High Courr of A.p., reported in 2001 (6) AIjI 757, directing parity between promoted and directly recruited Associate Professors, based on 5thPay Revision Commission recommendations; however, pay anomalies remained unaddressed, and juniors were 2 wp_5433_2019 NBl(, J i. promoted to Prof'essors in 2007 ignoring the petitiont:,r', conrpelling him to f,rle W.P. No. 101 of 2007 and the same is pending, rncl no counter has been hled by the Coltege yet. The petitioner iseligible, healthy and willing to se:n'e till 65 years, and any premature retlrernent would deprive him of five years' service and related benqfit:; including salary PF, and gratuity. The College, affrliated to AICTE. is brtund by its service regulttions under Clause 1.2 and 1.4 of the said Notification. The petitioner therefore seeks a Writ of Mandamus, d:claring the notice dated 23.02.20 l9 as illegal and violative of AICTE \otification dated 01.03.2019, and to consequently direct respondent Nos..5 and 6 to continue him in service till he attains the age of 65 years.

2. No counter affidavit has been filed by responde:nt Nos. 1, 2 and 3 inspite of sevoral opporhrnities granted by this Court. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4. Counter affida,.'it anrl additional counter affidavit has been f,rled by respondent Nos.5 arrd (r.

3. Heard Mr. Surender Rao, learned Senior Courrsel appearing on behalf of Mr. l'.S. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel lbr the petitioner; and Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy. learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6. Peruserl the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitionerwould essentially contend that the petitioner, who was appointed as Lecturer in 1984 and promoted as Associate Professor with effect from 3 L01.1993, was i tlegally retired by the 5threspondent college through the impugne,d notice dated 23.02.2019, slating that he would attain the age of supcrannuation on 31.03.2019, despite being entitled to continue in service till the age of 3 wp_5433_2019 . NBK,,J 65 years as per Regulation2.72 of the AICTE Regulations, 2019, which came into effect from 01.03.2019. It is submitted that the writ petition is maintainable against the private unaided institution as per settled law and precedents including S. Triveni vs Andhra Mahila Sabha, Vasavi College of Engineering vs A. Surnarayana, and Marwari Balika Wdyalaya vs Asha Srivastava, which recognize writ jurisdiction over private educational institutions discharging public functions and governed by stahrtory obligations. It is argued that the impugned action is not a private dispute but a violation of binding statutory regulations, and the college being a technical institution approved and affiliated by AICTE, is mandatorily bound by its regulations under Sections 10 and 23 of the AICTE Act, 1987. The contention of Respondents No.5 and 6 that such regulations require adoption by the State Govemment is untenable, as the applicability of AICTE Regulations is neither discretionary nor dependent on State adoption, as consistently held by this Court and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod vs State of Maharashtra, GR Bharath Sai Kumar vs State of Karnataka, and WP No. t9447 of 2016. tt is further submitted that the constitutional scheme under Entry 66 of List I prevails over any contrary provision under Entry 25 of List III or Entry 4l of List II, and therefore the service conditions of faculty in technical institutions fall within the exclusive domain of Parliament. It is also submitted that the petitioner, having been wrongfully terminated at 60 years and not being gainfully employed thereafteq is entitled to full back wages till the age of 65 years, in light of decisions such as Deepali Gundu Surwase, Dayanand Chakrawarthy, Pradeep Jain, arrd Katuri Rombabu, wberein it was held 4 wp_5433_2019 ' NSK,I that the principle of 'no work no pay, does not apply, when an employee is prevented from discharging duties due to ill.:gar action of the employer. The petitioner, not being an employee of the State, Uriversity, or an aided institution, but of a private technical institution governed by AICTE Regulations, is entitled to the benefit of su[rerannuation age of 65 years and ail consequential reliers, including salary and service benefits. 5' A counter affidavit is fired by respondent No.4 - Assistant Director and Regional coordinator of Allrndia co.ncil for Technical Education (AICTE). It is stated that AICTE, a staturory bociy constituted under Act 51 of 1987, is responsiblc lor the coordi:tated development and regulati.n of technical education across India, ,,vith powers under Section l0 of the AICTE Act including granting i:Lpprovals for new institutions and programs under Section I0(k), and ,,vithholding grants from non-compliant institutions under Section I0( q). The petitioner challenges the impugned notice issued by respondents No.5 and 6, relying on the AICTE Notification dated 0l-03-201,), ,775.."in Clause 2.2 specifies the superannuation age for faculty as 6-5 years; hence, retiring any f,rculty member berore attaining this age ..s contrary to said Notification' rhe Notification came into force upon publication in the Gazette on 01.03.2019 and remains applicable to the petitioner, u,ho has not yet reached the prescribed age of retirement, nraking the notice issued by respondent No.6 unsustainabre. The petitroner has already placed a copy of this Notification on record. The AICT'E has historically issued several Notifications detailing service conditions, pay.scales, and qualifications for technical education facurty, and in light of numerous 5 wp_5433_2019 N8K,I disputes regarding retirement age, including the judgment passed in CWP No.17643 of 2003 by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Dr. S.C. Dhawan & Others v. Union of India & Others, AICTE was directed to amend its regulations to clariff that service condition regulations, including superannuation age, are optional for State Governments unless specihcally adopted. Pursuant to this directive, AICTE proposed an amendment to its Notification dated

01.03.2019, inserting a note below Clause 2.12 (Degree) and Clause 2.9 (Diploma) stating that the age of superannuation in State-owned or aided institutions shall be governed by the policy ofthe respective State Goverrment. This amendment was approved by the Executive Committee on 28.11.2023 and is pending publication in the Gazette, to take effect thereafter.

6. A counter affidavit, and an additional counter affidavit, has been filed by respondent No. 5 and 6, stating that the writ petition filed against these respondents being a private, unaided, self-hnanced educational institution-is not maintainable since the respondents do not fall within the ambit of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is not entitled to relief under Clause 2.12 of the AICTE Notification dated 01 .03 .20 19, which was issued in pursuance of UGC Letter dated 30-01-2018 and the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education's Letter dated 02-11-2017. The said documents clarifr that the scheme of revision of pay of teachers and related benefits, including superannuation, apply only to Central Universities, Colleges under them, and Institutions Deemed to be Universities receiving UGC 6 wp_5433 2019 NBK, J funding, and that the implementation of the scheme by Stale universities and colleges is contingent upon adoption by ttLe respective State Governments. Pursuant to the 2010 AICTE Reguliltions dated Z2-Ol- 2010, the State Govemment of Andhra Pradesh cons..ituted a Committee and subsequently issued G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 2O-02-ZOIO and G.O.Ms.No.40 dated 28-06-2012, specihcally declining to adopt the AICTE rule on superannuation, instead maintaining the retirement age as 60 years for university teachers and 58 years for r:ollege staff. Notwithstanding this, the petitioner was allowed to serue till 60 years, although the institution had the authority to relieve hrrn at jig years. The said AICTE Notification dated 01-03-2019, based on l,hpay Commission recommendations, is not binding on these respondents unless adopl.ed by the State through an express Government Order- similar to G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 20-02-2010 which implemented 6,hpay Commission nonns. The petitioner's appointment r,vas purely private and contracfual, governed by the institution's Seruicr: Rule,s, especially Rule 15 which prescribes superannuation at 60 year.s, in line with the State Govemment norms, and not affected by any inc rease in retirement age applicable to public employees under The Telangana public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 19g4. The relieving order dated 30-03-2019 was communicaterl to the petitioner effective from 31.03.2019 and has not been ctrallenged, thereby rendering the writ infructuous. Additionally, the prefilisls. accepted retirement benefits, indicating acquiescence. The I AFRC guidelines dated 27-10-2021 referred to by the petitioner ar:: non-binding, as TAFRC lacks authorify to prescribe age of supera.nnuation. Furlher, 7 wp_5433_2019 NBK, J AICTE's power under Sections 23(l), 10(g), 10(h), and 10(i) of the AICTE Act, 1987 does not extend to prescribing service conditions like retirement age for unaided private institutions such as the respondents; and therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

1. Leamed counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 would contend that the writ petition is not maintainable, as Respondent No. 5 is a private unaided educational institution, and the petitioner's employment was purely contractual; that the appointment and service conditions of the petitioner are governed exclusively by the institutional byelaws and not by any stahrtory framework; that no element of public law is involved in the dispute; that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in St. Marys Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava,, private unaided institutions are not "State" or "public authorities" within the meaning of Article 72, and disputes concerning private employment carmot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction unless a public duty is involved; that the petitioner was employed on a contracfual basis, and the service rules framed by Respondent No. 5 prescribed the age of superannuation as 60 years; that the petitioner was relieved on 30.03.2019 vide upon attaining the said age, and he accepted the relieving order without protest and drew all post-retirement benehts; that the petitioner is therefore estopped from challenging his retirement at this stage; that the AICTE Regulations dated 01.03.2019, prescribing the age of superannuation as 65 years, are not applicable to unaided private institutions like respondent No. 5 unless specifrcally adopted by the State Government; that in the instant case, the State of Telangana has not adopted these regulations nor issued any Government Order extending their o wp_5433_2019 NBK, J applicabilitv to private unaided technical institutions; that the regulations are thus not binding on Respondent No. .5; that AICTE is not empowered under Sections l0(g), l0(h), 10(i), or liection 23(l) of the AICTE Act, 1987 to frame binding regulations goveming seruice conditions such as the age of superannuation for institutions that do not receive any government aid. Courts have consiste ntly held that such regulatory overreach is ultra vires the AICTE Act, ancl this is supported by judicial decisions includingK.l sudhir v. state of K.rara (Kerala High Court), Vidarbha youth Welfare Society v. Ltr. Mir. Saclique Ali Q.{agpur Bench, Bombay High Court) wherein both the ju,lgments both the judgments affirm that prescribing the age of srupera,nuation is a matter within the exclusive domain of the State Government; that determination of age of retirement is a policy matte:r to be decided by the respective state Governments; that even for State-run or aided institutions, AICTE regulations are inapplicable r,rnless specifically adopted by the State; that the petitioner has faiied ro clemonstrate any such adoption by the Government of Telangana in thc context of unaided pri'ate institutions; that The Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (TAFRC) is a regulatory bodrr conc;emed solely with fee structures and admissions, and it has no jurisdictiorL or statutory authoriry to prescribe or enforce service conditions, i,cluding the age of retirement, and this position is wel-settred inG. puiltt Reclcr.y v. state of A.P., Manart Sankara Rao y. State of Andhra pradesh; that even assuming without admitting that the AICTE,s 2019 regulations were applicable, the writ petition has become infructuous; as the petitioner was relieved on 30.03.2019 after attaining the age o:l 60 years and by 9 wp_5433_2019 NBK, J

31.03.2024, he would have attained the age of 65 years and therefore, no relief of reinstatement or continuation in service survives; that the Govemment Order (G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 28.01.2025), enhancing the superannuation age to 65 years, applies exclusively to regular teaching staff of State Universities under the administrative,control of the Higher Education Department; that the petitioner, being an employee of a private unaided institution, is not covered under the said G.O., which is also prospective in operation and cannot be retrospectively applied to benefit the petitioner, who would have already retired; that the AICTE has proposed an amendment to Clause 2.12 of the 2019 Regulations pursuant to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.WP. No. 17643 of 2003, claifying that the age of superannuation shall be determined by respective State Governments for State-owned or aided institutions; that the AICTE Executive Committee approved the amendment on28.11.2023, and it is in the process of being notified, and this confirms the position that even the AICTE does not claim authority to f,rx superannuation ages for private unaided instihrtions; that the petitioner's reliance on the order in W.P. No.8552 of 2022 rs misconceived, as that decision did not consider the binding Supreme Court clarification in Pramod v. State of Maharashtra, which held that no law was laid down regarding superannuation, and failed to examine the Sr. Maryb Education Society case. The recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India further affrrms the inapplicability of centrally prescribed retirement ages to institutions governed by State-specific policies. i t I j I I 10 wp_5433_2019 NBK, J

8. Having considered the respective contentior:Ls and. perused the record, it may be noted that the essential grievance of thc petitioner is about his premature retirement from MVSR Errgineering Coltege, Hyderabad, on 31.03.2019, at the age of 60, ciespite the AICTE, Notification dated 01.03.2019 prescribing a supqrannuation age of 65 years for faculty members. The petitioner conten<l.s that the college, being affilia.ted with AICTE, is bound by its regulirtions, and thus his retirement was illegal. [n St. Mary's Education grllcietf v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, the Supreme Court held thrrt pri',rate unaided institutions are not "State" under Arlicle l2 of the Ci:,nstitution, and writ petitions are not maintainable against them unless thev perfonn public functions or duties. The Court emphasized that for a writ to be maintainabk:, the action complained of must have a public law element. In the present case, the petitioner's employment irnd retiremenf are governed by, the college's intemal service rules, specifically Rule 15, which prescl'ibes a superannuation age of 60 years. There is no statutory provision or government order extending the AICTE's prescribed retirement age to private unaided institutions in the State.Furthennore, the AICTE,'s authority to enforce selvice conditions [ike retirement age on private unaided institutions is limited. In Vidarbha youth Welfare Sociefy v. Dr. Mir Sadique AIi, the Bombay Hi6r,h Cor_rrt held that AICTE regulations regarding service conditions are not binding on private unaided instifutions unless adopted by the lltate Government. Similarly, in K.J. Sudhir v. State of Kerala, the l:(erala High Court observed that AICTE's role is advisory concerning service conditions, 11 wp_5433_2019 NBK, J and its regulations do not have binding force on private unaided mstrtutrons. 1i. The petitioner also relies on Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava, where the Supreme Court held that a writ petition is maintainable against a private unaided institution performing public functions. However, this case is distinguishable as the school in question was receiving government aid, and the appointment and removal of teachers required approval from the State Government. In contrast, MVSR Engineering College is a self-financed institution with no such govemmental control over its intemal affairs.

12. Regarding the petitioner's claim for back wages, the principle laid down in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in Deepali Gundu (supra), the Supreme Court awarded back wages to an employee who was illegally terminated without following due process. In the present case, the petitioner's retirement was in accordance with the college's service rules, and there is no evidence of any illegality or violation of due process.

13. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon' ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.20542 and20547 of 2010, wherein the matter was conceming with Chaitanya Bharathi Institute of Technology (CBIT) and the vires of AICTE Regulations, 2010 was the subject matter before the Hon'ble Division Bench. The Division Bench, while disposing of the writ petitions, observed as follows: 72 wp_5433 2019 NBK, J "There is no material on record to show that the CBIT ir,i notified by the All India Council for Technical Education tobe either a University or a technical institution which is governed by the provisio-ts of tre 2010 Regulations. Therefore, the provisions of the 2010 Re(lulations do not apply k) the petitioner No.2. ln any case, the petitione.s being private unaided educational institutions, have a righl to appoint teacl^ers/staff and to prescribe the service conditions, including th'e sal::ries. Thus, it is evident that the provisions of the 2010 Regulations do not apply to the petitioner N0.2..".

14. Further, a similar issue conceming retirement age, as the one in the present writ petition, came up before the High llourt of Kerala in K.J. Sudhir (supra), wherein it was held as follows: " 1 5. ln lhe instant case also, it is an admitted fact that the conditions prescribed in the AICTE regulations with regard :o all matters concernlng the co-ordination and determination of standards of technical education have been complied with by the Statt;,. The cuestion would, therefore, only be whether the prescriptions of a uniform retirement age comes within the ambit of co_c.dination and determination of standards of education. Though the learned oounsel for the petitioner places reliance on several decisions of lhe High Court of Punjab and Haryana as well as the High Court of lvlaharashtra, in view of the fact that the question has been specifically considered by Division Benches of this Court and since there are no birding decisions of the Apex Court specifically on the point, I am bound by the judgments of this Court. The Division Bench has specifically consi,Jered v/hether the prescription of age of retirement would fall within the scope of ,,co- ordination and determination of standards of education,, and has been specifically held that it would not. lt is found that the fixin(:t of retirement age of teachers is the prerogative of the State Government and a policy decision which the State has to adopt taking note of the prevailing factual situations availing in the State. I notice thzrt the AICTE 13 wp_5433_2019 NBK, J Regulations also proceed on the basis of lack of qualified hands being available for appointment as teachers. The State is on record stating that there is absolutely no such dearth in the State of Kerala and that it would not be in the interest of maintaining standards of education to deny opportunity to fully qualified youngsters to be appointed as teachers. ln the above factual situation, I am of the opinion that the prayers, as sought for, in the writ petitions cannot be granted The writ petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed."

16. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the rationale in the Common Order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in w.P.Nos.20542 and20547 0f 20 10, and the rationale in the judgment in K. J. Sudhir (supra) of the High Court of Kerala, is applicable to the facts of the present case, and hence the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable for dismissal' 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed' No costs' Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR Itlote:- That the counsel name of Respondent Nos.5 & 6 is wrongly read as "Sri Srinivas Reddy,' instead of ,,Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy" in the draft appearance and in the order dated 28.05.2025 in W.P.No.S433 of 2019 and the same has been corrected as per the orders of the Hon'ble Court dated 20.08.2025 in l:A.No.1 ot 2025. This amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been dispatched on 13.06.2025. //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER , Advoca AN REDDY PUCI EDDY, SC RL, SC FOR HWANATHULA High Court for th PUC] One One One One One Two Tela Two CD Copie S na at To, 1 2 3 4 5 b 7 BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED: 2810512025 20t08t2025 AMENDED ORDER WP.No.5433 of 2019 \. - t:, , \ .16 SiP 2s25 \ -)o.J '. :;' r,, -,r..r;,y).2/ .:-:-:.-/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS *