Supreme Court of India
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPURversusRAJA RAM VERMA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 812
- Decided
- 24 November 2010
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
The Court held that extending the retirement age to 62 years is permissible only for teachers and staff treated on par with teachers, that prescribing retirement age is a managerial function not subject to interference unless unreasonable, and that such policies do not dilute the autonomy of IITs.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined whether IIT Kanpur could limit the extension of retirement age to 62 years only to teachers and staff treated on par with teachers, as per communications from the Ministry of Human Resource Development. The first respondent, an Assistant Registrar, claimed entitlement to the extended age but the Institute argued that he was not a teaching staff member. The Court held that prescribing retirement age is a managerial function and courts should not interfere unless the policy is unreasonable or lacks intelligible criteria. It found a valid rationale for allowing teachers and equivalent staff to serve beyond 60 years, and that the Institute’s decision to confine the benefit was lawful. The Court also considered whether applying Grants‑in‑Aid and loan rules would dilute the autonomy of IITs and concluded that autonomy was not compromised. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s order and directing the Institute to consider a sympathetic reduction of penal rent.
Issues considered
- Whether the extension of retirement age to 62 years can be confined to teachers and employees treated on par with teachers under Article 14.
- Whether the policy fixing retirement age is a managerial function exempt from judicial review unless unreasonable.
- Whether the first respondent is entitled to continue service beyond 60 years based on Ministry communications.
- Whether applying Grants‑in‑Aid and loan rules to IITs/IIMs dilutes their autonomy as institutions of national importance.
- Whether the autonomy of IIT Kanpur is affected by governmental directives on retirement age and pay scales.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14
- Grants-in-aid and loan ruless. 209(6)(iv)(a)
- Institutes of Technology Act, 1961s. 11, s. 13, s. 2, s. 31, s. 33, s. 4
Subjects
Administrative lawJudicial reviewRetirement ageArticle 14Institutes of Technology ActAutonomyNational importanceGrants-in-aidEmployment lawPublic policy
Judgment
[2010) 15 (ADDL.) $.C.R. 630
A INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR
v.
RAJA RAM VERMA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5341 of 2003)
NOVEMBER 24, 2010
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
Administrative law: Judicial review - Prescribing or
extending age of retirement - Held: Is a managerial function
C - Such decision taken by the management of the institutions
like I. I. T. and I.I. M. are on consideration of various aspects -
Most predominant consideration is the need of the institute, ,
its functional requirements and efficient management of its
manpower - These are the areas where the court should not
D normally venture and judgment in this area should be best
left with the authorities who are in-charge of running or
managing such institutes - However, if court finds that the
policy in fixing the age of retirement was not based on any
intelligible criterion or is founded on such a basis which are
E patently unreasonable and perverse, the court has a bounden
duty to interfere and direct the concerned management to
proc1~ed on a reasonable basis - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article 14 - Institutes of Technology Act, 1961.
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14 - Extension of age
F of retirement - Intelligible differentia - I.I. T., Kanpur confined
the benefit of service upto 62 years to teachers and to
employees on par with teachers - Held: There is a valid
rationale in allowing teachers and persons holding posts
which are at par with teachers to work beyond 60 years - Good
G faculty of academicians for doing the job of teachers is difficult
to find - In any discipline and especially in a discipline in an
institute like I.I. T., it is very difficult to replace an experienced
teacher with years of learning, maturity and experience -
Institutes of Technology Act, 1961.
H 630
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR v. 631
RAJA RAM VERMA
Institutes of Technology Act, 1961: ss.2, 4, 11, 13, 31, 33 A
- Autonomy of the Institution - I.I. T Kanpur is an Institution
of National Importance - The decision making exercise is with
the council composed of academicians - Therefore, it cannot
be said that the independence of the institutions is controlled
or diluted by Government - Education/Educational B
institutions.
The first respondent was appointed on 11.11.1983 to
the post of Assistant Registrar at appellant•institute. He .
was to retire on 31.8.2000 on attaining the age of 60 years.
Initially the statute of 1.1.T. provided for 60 years as the age C
of superannuation for all the staf'. members. The first
respondent claimed his entitlement to continue till 62
years of age on the basis of communications of the
Ministry of Human Resource Development whereby th~ · .·
age of superannuation of University and College teachers D
was increased to 62 years. The appellant-institute sought
for clarification as regards the applicability of the
communications to the Assistant Registrars. One Mr.
Bakre was allowed to continue in the absence of proper
clarification from the Central Government. Subsequently E
clarification was received and it was clear that the
increase in the age of retirement was only in case of
those categories o~ employees who could be treated at
par with the teachers. The a'ppellant-institute passed an
order to that effect. A writ petition was fhed by the first F
respondent before the High Court challenging the said
order. The High Court allowed the writ petition. -
The questions which arose for consideration· in the
instant appeal were whether the decision of the appellant G
that the benefit of service upto 62 years was confined to
teachers and employees at par with teachers was
justified; and whether Grant-in-aid and loan rules could
be made applicable to 1.1.T. and 1.1.M. and by applying said
rules, the independence of institutions like l_.l.T. and 1.1.M. H .
632 SUPREME COURT REP¢:>RTS [2010] 15 (ADDL) S.C R
A in matter of employment of the teachers is sought to be
diluted.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Prescribing the age of retirement is a
B managerial function and such decisions are taken by the
management of the concerned institute on consideration
of various aspects. One of the most predominant
consideration is the need of the institute, its functional
requirements and efficient management of its manpower.
C These are the areas where the court should not normally
venture and judgment I~ this area should be best left with
the authorities who are In-charge of running or managing
such institutes. However, if the court finds that the policy
in fixing the age of retirement was not based on any
D intelligible criterion or is founded on such a basis which
are patently unreasonable and perverse, the court has a
bounden duty to interfere and direct the concerned
management to proceed on a reasonable basis. In the
segment of white collared employees, opportunities are
E quite few and there is a burning unemployment problem.
Therefore, if considering the ground realities the
Government fixes 60 years as the age of retirement for_
certain categories of employees, the court should be
very slow and circumspect before interfering with such
F decisions. [Paras 28, 31] [643-C-E; 644-F]
B. Bharat Kumar and Ors. v. Osmania University and
Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 58; Naga/and Senior Govt. Employees
Welfare Association and Ors. v. The State of Nagaland and
Ors. 2010(7) SCR 630 - relied on.
G
1.2. There is a valid rationale in allowing teachers and
persons holding posts which are at par with teachers to
work beyond 60 years. The reason for this is that it is very
difficult to find a good faculty of academicians for doing
H
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR v. 633
RAJA RAM VERMA
the job of teachers. In any discipline and especially in a A
disdpline in an institute like 1.1.T., it is very difficult to
replace an experienced teacher with years of learning,
maturity and experience. This explains why in many
cases even teachers are retained beyond their extended
period of retiremert by way of extension or their services B
·are continued on the basis of re-employment. This is
done' to preserve the intrinsic value and quality of .
tei.lching imparted in these 'nstitutions. Therefore, there
is no error in the decision of the appellant whereby the
benefit of service upto 62 years is confined to teachers c
and to those employees. who are on a par with teachers.
The first respondent was not able to establish that he was
a member of teaching staff or he was to be treated at par
with the teachers. In that view of the matter, his claim to
continue in service after 60 years of age was -not
0
sustainable. Whether a particular employee has to be
treated at par with the teaching staff is by and large a
decision of the management of the appellant institute and
it is difficult for this Court to interfere with the said
decision unless it is ex facie perverse. Here, no such case E .
was made out by the· first respondent. Mr. Bakre was
allowed to continue on!y under fortuitous circumstances
and in the absence of any proper clarifications by the
Central Government. The respondent cannot claim the
same right. In the case of Mr. Bakre, no legal right was
extended to him. He was allowed to continue in the F
absence of any clarification about when retirement fell
due. Thus, in passing the impugned order of retirement
of the first respondent on his attaining the age of 60
years, the appellant has not committed any illegality.
[Paras 25, 26, 27, 32, 33] [644-G-H; 645-A-C; 642-G-H; 643- G
A-8]
2. The Preamble of the Institutes of Technology Act,
1961, which is an Act of Parliament, shows that the same
has been enacted to declare certain institutions of H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A technology to be institutions of national importance.
Section 2 of the said. Act makes it. clear that 1.1.T Kanpur
(the appellant) is an Institution of National Importance.
Under Section 31 of the Act, the Central Government may
by a notification in the official gazette establish a Central
s Board to be called the Council and in the Council the
Minister in-charge of technical education of the Central
Government shall be the ex-officio Chairman. From the
li~t of the re-constituted Council of I.I.Ts, it appears that
Chairman of all the I.I.Ts, namely, 1.1.T Bombay, 1.1.T Delhi,
c 1.1.T Guwahati, 1.1.T Kanpur, 1.1.T Kharagpur, 1.1.T Madras,
1.1.T Roorkee are members of the said Council. Most of
them are professors or academicians. Under Section 33
of the Act it is the duty of the council to coordinate the
activities of all the institutes and to perform all the
D functions which are specified under Section 33(2) of the
Act. All major decision making exercise has been left in
the hands of the re-constituted Council which is
predominantly composed of ' cdttemicians. The Council
in its 40th meeting held c.1, 0 10.2009 has constituted a
committee under the Chairmdnship of Dr. Anil Kakodkar,
E Chairman, Board of Governors, 1.1.T Bombay "for
suggesting a roadmap for the autonomy and the future
of the I.I.Ts as world class institutions for research and
higher learning". Pursuant to the said resolution in the
40th meeting of the Council, a Committee has been
F constituted. The materials and the affidavit of the
Government disclosed that autonomy of these institutes
is not being diluted. Rather, an attempt is made by the
Government of India to improve the academic ambience
of these institutes by recommending extension of age of
G retirement of the Director of the Institute and of members
of the academic faculty. Attempt has also been made to
attract the best talent by a progressive revision of the pay
scale. [Para 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 52] (646-F-G; 647-B;
648-E-H; 649-E-G; 652-C-G; 657-B-E]
H
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR v. 635
RAJA RAM VERMA
Case law' Reference: A-
(2001) 11 sec sa relied on Para 29
2010(7) SCR 630 relied on Para 30
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. B
5341 of 2003. ·
From the Judgment & Order dated 10.07.2002 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
54346 of 2000.
c
Nikhil Nayyar, T.V.S.R. Sreyas, Sunil Goyal for the
Appellant. /
I
Gopal Subramanium, S.G., Raja Verma, Anubhav Kumar
(for D.S. Mahra) for the Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ·
GANGULY, J. 1. The Respondent No. 1 Shri Raja Ram
Verma was appointed to the post of Assistant Registrar at
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter 1.1.T.) on E
11.11.1983. As per Statute 13 of I. I. T., the respondent was due
to retire on 31.08.2000 on attaining the age of 60 years. His
case before us is that he should have been allowed to continue
upto the age of 62 years.
2. 1.1.T. Kanpur is a body incorporated under the Institutes F
of Technology Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). Section 27 of
the Act provides for framing of first Statutes by the 1.1.T. Such
statutes are to deal with matters mentioned in Section 26.
Section 26 (g) provides for framing of statutes relating to terms
and conditions of service of teachers and other staff of the 1.1.T. G
Section 31. of the Act provides for the establishment of Council
which is a.central body. Under Section 33 of the Act the general
duty of the Council is to coordinate the activities of the Institute
and under Section 33(2)(b) one of the general duties of the
Council is to lay down the policies regarding cadres, method H
;
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL) S.C.R
A of recruitment and Ct;,,ditions of service of employees amongst
other things of common interest.
3. Statute 11 classifies the employees under three
categories. They are (a) academic, (b) technical and (c)
·: administrative. Respondent No. 1 who was appointed as an
9
Assistant Registrar falls under the third category.
4. Generally, the statute 13 (2) framed under the Act
prescribes the age of superannuation of a confirmed appointee.
Initially the statute provided for 60 years as the age of
C superannuation for all the staff members. By an amendment on ,
23.06. ·1989 however, a sub-statute 3 was added making some
changE~s. The said amendment runs as follows:
"(3)Subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes,
D all the new appointments to posts on revised salary scales
adopted with effect from 1st January 1986 under the
lnstitutie shall ordinarily be made on probation for a period
of one year after which period the appointee, if confirmed,
shall r.ontinue to hold office, subject to the provisions of the
Ac:t and the Statutes as follows:
E
(a) Teaching Staff (faculty and Group 'D' Staff): lill the
end of the month in which he attains the age of 60
years
F (b) Group A, Band C staff (non faculty): Till the end of
the month in which he attains the age of 58 years.
5. This amendment did not affect the Respondent No. 1
as it was applicable for those who were appointed w.e.f.
01.01.1986.
G
6. Thereafter, by an office order issued by the Registrar's
office, 1.1.T. Kanpur, dated 14.07.1998, the age of retirement
was increased from 58 to 60 years with effect from 30.05.1998.
This was done in respect of members of Groups A, B and C
H
.
(non faculty) who had been appoint13d on or after 23.06.1989.
' .
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR v. 637
RAJA RAM VERMA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
7. On 27.07.1998, the Ministry of Human Resource A
Development addressed to the Secretary, University Grants
Commission, and forwarded to the Vice Chancellors of all
Central Universities, Member Secretary, All India Council for
Technical Education and Secretary of the Indian Council for
Agricultural Research, providing therein that the age of B
superannuation of University and College teachers would be 62
years with the liberty reserved to the Universities and Colleges
to re-employ superannuated teachers within the existing
, guidelines framed by the U.G.C. .
8. The respondent No.1 claims his entitlement to continue
c
till 62 years of age on the basis of this communication. 1
9. Another communication was issued on 31st August,
1998 by the Department of Education, Ministry of H.l;tD. to the
Director of the 1.1.T. with regard to increase in the age of D
superannuation of academic staff including personnel of
Registry, Library and Physical Education. Thereupon, the
appellant sought clarification from the Ministry about the term
"Personnel of Registry, Library and Physical Education Staff."
E
10. The case of the appellant is that it got a telephonic
communication from the Ministry on or about 14th October 1998
that the increase in the age of superannuation from 60 to 62
years is confined to the case of Assistant Registrar level and
the officers above. Thereupon, the appellant allowed one Shri.
F
S.H. Bakre, Assistant Registrar to continue in service, who was
due to retire on 31st August 1998. Thereafter, the Chairman
of the Board of Governors approved the proposal of the
Director, wherein it was proposed that.the staff, whose age of
retirement was 58 years, would superannuate on attaining 60
years and the members of the staff whose age of retirement at G
the time of appointment was 60 years, would superannuate on
attaining 62 years. However, the said proposal of the Director
even though approved by the Chairman, was not put up before
the Board of Governors for ratification, hence no effect was
H
·•
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A given to the same as required under statute 7(4) of the first
statute.
11. In Statute 7(4) of the statutes of 1.1.T., all orders of the
Chairman have to be approved by the Board. The relevant
B provision of Statute 7(4) is in the following terms:
"7(4) In emergent cases the Chairman may exercise the
powers of the Board and inform the Board of the action
taken by him for its approval."
c 12. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that as
re!spondent No.1 was admittedly appointed on 11.11.1983, he
was due for superannuation on 31.12.2000 on attaining the age
of superannuation of 60 years in terms of statute 13(2). The
exact provision of Statute 13(2) in this connection is set out
.0 below:
"(2) Subject to the provisions of the Act and the statutes,
all appointments to posts under the Institute shall ordinarily
be made on probation for a period of one year after which
period the appointee, if confirmed, shall continue to hold
E his office subject to the provisions of the Act and the
Statutes, till the end of the month in which he attains the
age of 60 years. Provided that where the Board considers
that in the interests of students and for the purposes of
teaching and guiding the research scholars any member
F of the academic staff should be reemployed, it may re-
employ such a member till the end of the semester or the
academic session as may be considered appropriate .in
the circumstances of each case.
G Provided further that where it becomes necessary to
re-employ any such member beyond the end of the
semester or academic session as the case may be, the
Board may with the previous approval of the visitor, re-
employ any such member for a period upto three years in
the first instance and upto two years thereafter and in no
H
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR v. 639
RAJA RAM VERMA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
•'
case exceeding the end of the academic session in which A
he attains the age of 65 years.
Provided also that in no circumstances such member
shall be reemployed for any purposes other than those of
teaching and guiding the research scholars."
B
13. Then by a communication dated 6.11.1998 the
Government of India, the second respondent, clarified the
scheme notified in its earlier communication dated 27.7.1998
to the· extent that the age of superannuation at 62 will be
applicable only to those Registrars; Librarians, Physical C
Education personnel who are treated at par with teachers and
whose age of superannuation was 60 years.
14. Thereafter, the 1.1.T. council met on 20.2.1999 and
decided that the age of superannuation of staff members of D
I.I.Ts (except faculty and scientific/design staff in Group A
category) would continue to be 60 years, as in the case of the
Central Government employees.
15. In the meantime, the case of another Assistant
Registrar, namely Shri S.K. Gupta, who was to retire on E
31.3.1999, came up for consideration and the then Director of
I.LT. sought clarification from the Ministry of Human Resource
Development. In seeking such a clarification, the Director was
informed by the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource
·Development that a clarification would be sent shortly. In the F
absence of any clarification, the Director decided that till further
clarification is received from the Ministry, Shri S.K. Gupta may
continue.
16,: However, on 30.3.1999 itself a communication was G
received, from the Ministry of Human Resource Development
giving the clarification and in paragraph (5) of the said
clarification it was provided as under:
"Attention of this Ministry has, however, been drawn to the
fact that the position stated in para 4 above requires H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A clarification. Accordingly, it is clarified that the increase in
the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years indicated
in this Ministry letter of even number dated 31st August,
1998 as stated above would be applicable only to those
categories of employees of llTs, llMs and llSc who are
8 being treated at par with the teachers and whose age of
superannuation was 60 years."
17. On 16.2.2000 a further clarification was given by the
second respondent to the Director of the appellant that the
increase in the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62
C years would be applicable only to those cJtegories of
employees of I.I.Ts, I.I.Ms and I.I.Sc who are being treated at
par with the teachers and whose age of superannuation was
60 years.
D 18. In view of the aforesaid clarification by the second
respondent, a grievance was raised about alleged
discrimination between the members of faculty staff and those
members of staff who are categoried as non-faculty staff. In the
background of such a plea of discrimination, the second
E respondent, by its further communication dated 24.4.2000,
clarified that since the members of the staff of various I.I.Ts are
classified into 3 categories namely, i) academic ii) technical
and iii) admjnistrative and others and since Librarians are falling
in the categories of the academic staff, their age of retirement
F would be 62 years.
19. Thereafter, the Board of Governors of the appellant in
its meeting held on 22.5.2000, on consideration of the
communication dated 24.4.2000 from the second respondent
came to the following conclusion:
G
"The Board was informed of the outcome of the
discussions ~1he llTs Directors meeting held on 9th April,
2000. The Board after a brief discussion decided as under:
1. Those Assistant Registrars who are in service beyond
H ','I
L_
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR v. 641.
RAJA RAM VERMA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
60 years will retire on December 31, 2000. However, if a A
person reaches 62 years before that date, he will retire at
the end of the month in which he completes 62 years.
2. Librarian and Deputy Librarian will retire on completing
62 years, in view of MHRD clarification. 8
3. A decision with respect to Physical Education Instructors-
Class-A will be taken once a clarification is received from
the MHRD."
20. Thereupon, a memorandum was issued by the C
appellant on 17.7.2000 to the effect that the date of
superannuation of all the Assist<mt Registrars, who figured in
the said memorandum will be 31st December, 2000. However,
Shri S.H. Bakre was not allowed to continue since his dcite of
superannuation was 31.8.2000. o
21. Being aggrieved by the said memorandum dated
17.7.2000; respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before the
Allahabad High Court.
22. The consistent case of the appellant before the High E
Court was that age of retirement of only those employees was
enhanced who could be treated at par with the teachers. In the
affidavit filed by the appellant before the High Court they have
reiterated that they are bound by the communication from the
Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India dated F
30.3.1999 and also one dated 24.4.2000. The relevant part of
the 30.3.1999 notification has been set out above and the
subsequent clarification by the Ministry's communication dated
24.4.2000 also relies on para 5 of the Ministry's communication
dated 30.3.1999. On a combined reading of the aforesaid two G
communications issued by the second respondent, it is more
than clear that increase in the age of retirement has been made
available only to those categories of employees who are
treated at par with the teachers.
23. HoWever, the High Court on an erroneous basis H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the appellant
dated 17. 7.2000. It may be mentioned in this connection that
subsequently thE' Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court by a
judgment and order dated 14.10.2004 disagreed with the
decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in favour of the
s respondent No.1 and held that "Hence in our opinion the age
of retirement of an employee of the Indian Institute of Technology
is 60 years and not 62 years vide Section 13(2). We, therefore,
respectfully disagree with the decision in Raja Ram Verma's
case. The judgment in Raja Ram Verma's case (supra) is
c hereby overruled".
24. It may be noted in this connection that an affidavit has
been filed by the appellant before this Court explaining the
conditions under which Mr. Bakre was allowed to continue
beyond 60 years. Since Mr. Bakre was an Assistant Registrar
D and was due to retire on 31.8.1998 the benefit of increased·
age was extended to him, pending clarification about the age
of retirement from the second respondent. The issuance of
clarification was by the second respondent, the Central
Government. The Board of the appellant decided that six of its
E Assistant Registrars would have to be superannuated based
on the office memo dated 16.2.2000 issued by the Government
of India and thereupon the Board of Governors decided that all
the six Assistant Registrars except Mr. Bakre would be allowed
to continue till 31.12.2000. Therefore, Mr. Bakre was allowed
F to continue only under fortuitous circumstances and in the
absence of any proper clarifications by the Central Government.
25. This Court is of the opinion that the respondent cannot
claim the same right. In the case of Mr. Bakre no legal right was
G extended to him. He was allowed to continue in the absence
of any clarification about when retirement fell due.
26. The first respondent, who is appearing in person, has
not been able to establish before us that he is a member of
teaching staff or he was treated at par with the teachers. In that
H view of the matter his claim to continue in service after 60 years
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR v. 643
RAJA RAM VERMA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
of age cannot be sustained and the High Court came to an A
erroneous finding in taking a contrary view.
27. Whether a particular employee has to be treated at par
with the teaching staff is by and large a decision of the
'management of the appellant institute and it is difficult for this 8
Court to interfere with the said decision unless it is ex facie
perverse. Here, no such case has been made out by the first
respondent.
28. It has been held by this Court, more than once, that
prescribing the age of retirement is a managerial function and C
such decisions are taken by the management of the concerned
institute on consideration of various aspe~ts. One of the most
predominant consideration is the need· of the institute, its
'functional requirements and efficient management of its
manpower. These are the areas where the CoU'rt should not D
normally venture and judgment in this area should be best left ·
with the authorities who are in-charge of running or managing
such institutes. However, if the Court finds that the policy in fixing
Jhe age of retirement was not based on any intelligible criterion
or is founded on such a basis which are patently unreasonable E
and perverse, the Court has a bounden duty to interfere and
direct the concerned management to proceed on a reasonable
basis.
29. In B. Bharat Kumar and Ors. Vs. Osmania University
and Ors. - (2007) 11 sec 58, this Court expressed such a view F
in paragraph 19 at page 73 of the judgment and which is
quoted below:
"Learned counsel also argued, to a great extent, the
desirability of the age of superannuation being raised to G
60 or 62, as the case may be. We again reiterate that it is
not for this Court to formulate a policy as to what the age
of retirement should be as by doing so we would be trailing
into the dangerious area of the wisdom of the legislation.
If the State Government in its discretion, which is H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A permissible to it under the scheme, decides to restrict the
age and not increase it to 60, or as the case may be, 62,
it was perfectly justified in doing so."
30. Similar views have been expressed recently by
8 another Bench of this Court in Nagaland Senior Govt.
Employees Welfare Association and Ors. Vs. The State of
Naga/and and Ors. - Civil appeal No. 4955 of 2010 decided
on 6.7.2010. In paragraph 40 of the judgment this Court opined
as follows:
C "... The rule of retirement on completion of 35 years of
service has relevance to employees who have joined
service at an age below 25 years and the prescription with
regard to retirement at the age of 60 years is in respect
of the persons joining service at the age of 25 and
D thereafter. The above two categories of employees, though
performing similar duties and may be identically placed
otherwise can still be reasonably understood to form two
different classes to whom application of two. rules of
retirement will not violate Article 14.... "
E
31. This Court must remember that in the segment of white
collared employees, opportunities are quite few and there is a
burning unemployment problem. Therefore, if considering the
ground realities the Government fixes 60 years as the age of
F mtirement for certain categories of employees, the Court
should be very slow and circumspect before interfering with
such decisions.
32. This Court finds that there is a valid rationale in allowing
teachers and persons holding posts. which are at par with
G teachers to work beyond 60 years. The reason for this is that it
is very difficult to find a good faculty of academicians for doing
the job of teachers. In any discipline and especially in a
discipline in an institute ilke tl.T., it is very difficult to replace
an experienced teacher with years ·of learning, maturity and
H experience. This explains why in many cases even teachers are :
I
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR v: 645
RAJA RAM VERMA [ASOK KUMAR GANGUl..Y, J.]
retained beyond their extended period of retirement by way of A
extension or their services are continued on the basis of re-
employment. This is done to preserve the intrinsic value and
quality of teaching imparted in these institutions.
33. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the 8
decision of the appellant whereby the benefit of service upto
62 years is confined to teachers and to those employees who
are on a par with teachers. Thus, in passing the impugned order
of retirement of the first respondent on his attaining the age of
60 years, the appellant has not committed any illegality.
c
34. In this matter a somewhat rarger questicn cropped up
in view of submissions made by learned Solicitor General, who
appeared on behalf of the Union ..of India, the second
respondent. The learned ~olicitor drew our attention to.J~ule .
209(6)(iv)(a) of Grants-in-aid and loan rules. ReJYing on the said D
rules, the learned Solicitor submitted that the age of retirement
. of teachers and others employed in I.I.Ts and I.I.Ms has been
fixed
. at par with Central Government' employees. The said rule.
is set out below:-
E
"All grantee institutions or organizations which receive
more than fifty percent of their recurring expenditure in form
of grant-in-aid, should ordinarily formulate terms and
conditions of service of their employees which are by and
large not higher than those applicable to similar categories F
·of employees in central government. In exceptional cases
relaxation may be made in consultation with the Ministry
of Finance."
35. Considering the aforesaid stand of the second
respondent, a question of public importance which arises is G
whether the aforesaid rules can be made applicable to I.I.Ts
and I.I.Ms which are Institutes of National importance. This Court
pointedly asked this question to the learned Solicitor whether
by applying the said rules independence of institutions like I.I.Ts
and I.I.Ms in matter of employment of the teachers is sought to H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A be controlled. Matter ofconcern for this Col..lrt is whether in the
process, the autonomy of these institutions is diluted by a
mindless bureaucratization of educational institutions which are
to function as centres· of excellence and are Institutions of
National Importance.
B
36. On such query being raised by this Court, the learned
Solicitor wanted some time for taking instructions and ultimately
filed an additional affidavit on behalf of Union of India, the
second respondent.
c 37. Reference in this connection may be made to Entry 63
and 64 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
Those two entries are set out:-
"63. The institutions known at the commencement of this
D Constitution as the Benares Hindu University, the Aligarh'
Muslim University and the Delhi University; the University
established in pursuance of Article 371-E any other
institution declared by Parliament by law to be an institution
of national importance.
E 64. Institutions for scientific or technical education financed
by the Government of India wholly or in part and declared
by Parliament by law to be institutions of national
importance."
F 38. It may be mentioned that the Preamble of the Institutes
of T-;chnology Act, 1961 (the said Act), which is an Act of
Parliament, shows that the same has been enacted to declare
certain institutions of technology to be institutions of National
Importance. Section 2 of the said Act runs as under:-
G "2. Whereas the objects of the institutions known as the
Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, the College of
Engineering and Technology, Delhi, the Indian Institute of
Technology, Kanpur and the Indian Institute of Technology,
Madras are such as to make them institutions of national
H
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR v. 647
RAJA RAM VERMA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ]
importance, it is hereby declared that each such institution A
is an institution of national importance."
39. It is clear from Section 2 of the aforesaid Act that 1.1.T
Kanpur is an Institution of National Importance. Section 4 of the
Act makes it clear that each of the institutions mentioned in B
Section 2 shall be a body corporate having a perpetual
succession and a common seal.
40. Learned Solicitor submitted that the Union of India is
committed to ensure that these lnstitutione of National
Importance retain their autonomy and also continue as centres C
of excellence and ultimately become a world class centre of
academi" pursuit and research.
41. From the stand of the Union of India, the second
respondent, it appears tt1at under the said Act, every institute,
0
under Section 4 of the said Act, shall have a Board of Governors
and under Section 11 of it the Chairman is to be nominated by
the Visitor. Under Section 9 of the Act the Visitor is the President
of India. It appears that it is the Board of Governors constituted
under Section 11, which is responsible for general E
superintendence, directions and control of the affairs of the
institute. Under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 13, the
Board of Governors is authorized to appoint persons to act as
academics and under this power the Board of Governors
appoint other persons to various posts in the institute. The
learned Solicitor further submitted that the actual composition F
of the Board of Governor of 1.1.T, Kanpur consists mainly of
academician and educationists.
42. In the affidavit, disclosure about the composition of the
Board of Governors, which has been made is as follows:- G
"(a) Chairman - Prof. M. Anandakrishnan
(b) Member, ex-officio - Director (Prof. Sanjay Dhande)
(c) Member - H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A - Prof. R.S. Nirjhar,' Vice-Chancellor, Gautam
Buddha University *(UP Govt. nominee)
- Shri Aman Kumar Singh, Secretary to Chief
Minister (Chattisgarh nominee)
B (d) Member (4 persons having special knowledge to
· be nominated by the Council):
- Prof. D.V. Singh, Former Vice-chancellor,
University of Roorkee.
c - Prof. Rajan Harshe, Vice-Chancellor, Allahabad
University.
- Shri Ashok Thakur, Additional Sec. GOI
- Shri N.K. Sinha, Joint Secretary, GOI
D (e) Members nominated by Senate:
- Prof. l.B. Dhariyal ,..
- Prof. Rajiv Shekhar"
E 43. Under Section 31 of the Act the Central Government,,
may by a notification in the official gazette establish a Central
Board to be called the Council and in the Council the Minister
incharge of technical education of the Central Government shall
be the ex-officio Chairman.
F 44. From the list of the re-constituted Council of I.I.Ts it
appE~ars that Chairman of all the I.I.Ts, namely, 1.1.T Bombay,
1.1.T Delhi, 1.1.T Guwahati, 1.1.T Kanpur, 1.1.T Kharagpur, 1.1.T
Madras, 1.1.T Roorkee are members of the said Council. Most
of them are professors or academicians. The list of the
G aforesaid re-Council is set out below:-
"List of Members of the re-constituted Council of
Indian Institutes of Technology (llTs)
H
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR v. 6~9
RAJA RAM VERMA [ASOK.KUMAR GANGULY, J.)
Name
,. ·.
Provision in the Act
A
Shri Kapil Sibal Chairman of Ex-officio
Hon'ble Minister (HRD) the Council [Section 31(2)(a)11
of llTs
'
Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Member Ex-officio B
Chairman, [Section 31 (2)(b)]]
BoG, llT Bombay
Shri R.P. Agrawal, Member - do~
'
Chairman, BoG,
I
llT Delhi c
Dr. R.P. Singh, Chairman, Member - do - ,
·.. -;_, /
BoG, llT Guwahati
Prof. M. Anandakrishnan, Member - do -
Chairman,
BoG, llT Kanpur -
'1
.. D t
Shri 8. Muthuraman, Member - do - ,:-
Chairman,
BoG, llT Kharagpur
Dr. R. Chidambaram, Member - do -
Chairman, E.
BoG, llT Madras
Shri Ashok Bhatnagar, Member - do -
Chairman,
BoG, llT Roorkee
Prof. Devang V. Khakhar, Member Ex-officio F
Director, (Section 31(2)(c)l
llT Bombay
Prof. Surendra Prasad, Member - do -
Director, llT Delhi
Prof. Gautam Barua, Member - do - G
Director,
llT Guwahati
Prof. S.G. Dhande, Member - do -
Director,
llT Kanpur
.. H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL ) S C R
A Prof. Damodar Acharya. Member - do -
Director,
llT Kharagpur
Prof. M.S. Ananth, Member - do -
Din:ctor, llT Madras
B Dr. S.C. Saxena, Member - do -
Director, llT Roorkee
Prof. Sukhdev Thora!, Member Ex-officio
Chairman, University (Section 31 (2)(d)]
Grants Commission
c Prof. Samir K. Member Ex-officio
Brahmachari, (Section 31 (2)(e)]
Director General (DG),
Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research
(CSIR)
D
Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Member Ex-officio
Chairman, (Section 31 (2)(f))
Council of Indian
Institute of Science
(llSC), Bangalure
E
Prof. P. Balaram, Member Ex-officio
Director, [Section 31 (2)(g)]
Indian Institute of
Science (llSc), Bangalore
Dr. S.S. Mantha, Member [Section 31 (2)(i)]
F Chairman,
All India Council for
Technical Education
(AICTE)
Prnf. C.N.R.Rao, Member [Section 31 (2)0)]
G Chairman, (term upto
Scientific Acfvisory 5.9.2012)
Council to the Prime
Minister
Prof. C.S. Seshadri, - do - - do -
H Director,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR v. 651
RAJA RAM VERMA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
A
Chennai Mathematical
Institute
Prof. Sabyasachi - do - - do -
Bhattacharya,
Ex-Director,
Tata Institute of
B
Fundamental Research
(TIFR), Mumbai
Dr. Kola Harinarayan, - do - - do -
Chairman,
Research Council of c
Central Scientific
Instruments Organization
(CSIO),
National Aerospace
Laboratories, Bangalore D
Shri Tarun Das, - do - - do -
Chief Mentor,
Confederation of Indian
Industry, Gurgaon
Smt. Vasanthi Stanley, Member [Section 31 (2)(k)) E
MP, Rajya Sabha (co-terminus)
Shri Deepender Singh - do - - do -
Hooda, MP, Lok Sabha
Shri Janardhana Swamy, - do - - do -
MP, Lok Sabha F
Smt. Vibha Puri Das, Representative [Section 31 (2)(h))
Secretary, Dept!. of of the
Higher Education Ministry of
Human Resource
Development
G
Ms. Sushma Nath, Representative - do -
Secretary, of the
Department of Ministry of
Expenditure, Ministry of Finance
Finance
H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Shri R. Chandrasekhar, Representative - do -
Secretary, of any
Department of other Central
Information Technology Government
Ministry
B Shri Ashok Thakur, Secretary, [Section 31 (3)]
Additional Secretary llT Council
(HE),Ministry of Human
Resource Development,
Deptt. of Higher
c Education
45. Under Section 33 of the Act it is the duty of the council I
to coordinate the activities of all the institutes and to perform
all the functions which are specified under Section 33(2) of the
D Act.
46. Relying on the aforesaid provision of the Act and the
re-constituted Council of the I.I.Ts, the learned Solicitor
submitted, and in our view rightly, that all major decision making
exercise has been left in the hands of the re-constituted Council
E which is predominantly composed of academicians.
47. It appears from the disclosures made before us that
the Council in its 40th meeting held on 19.10.2009 has
constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. Anil
F Kakodkar, Chairman, Board of Governors, 1.1.T Bombay "for
suggesting a roadmap for the autonomy and the future of the
I.I.Ts as world class institutions for research and higher
learning". Pursuant to the said resolution in the 40th meeting
of the Council, a Committee has been constituted by the
G Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India
by a notification dated 3.2.2010. The prefatory part of the said
notification is as follows:-,
"In the 40th meeting of Council of llTs held under the
Chairmanship of Hon'ble HRM on 19th October, 2009
H
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR v. 653
RAJA RAM VERMA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
(refer minutes issued vide F. No. 19-3/2009- TS. 1 dated A
24th November, 2009), it was decided that a Committee,
comprising Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, BoG, llT Bombay
and four other members to be nominated by him, may be
constituted for suggesting a roadmap for the autonomy and
the future of the llTs as world class institutions for research B
and higher lea_rning ..
2. Accordingly, it has been decided to constitute a
Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. Anil Kakodkar,
Chairman, BoG, llT Bombay to suggest a roadmap for the
autonomy and future of the llTs. Composition of the C
Committee will be as under:"
48. And the terms of reference of the Committee are as
under:-
D
"The Terms of Reference of the Committee are as follows:
1. To suggest a road-map for strengthening Financial,
Administrative and Academic autonomy of the llTs;
2. The issue of autonomy is closely linked with the E
capacity of institutions to raise their own resources
including through increase in fees in the llTs albeit
in a gradual manner. While doing so interest of the
weaker sections of the society could be taken care
of. The committee is to suggest a "means-blind F
system" wherein scholarships are provided to the
deserving, and a system of education loans
dovetailed into it. For the students who continue to
research and take up teaching assignments as a
career, D a system of interest, loan scheme could G
be explored;
3. The Committee to suggest ways and means to
retain/attract top B.Tech students wimm- the llT
system and outside to Post Graduate and Ph. D
programmes. Institutes should be incentivised by H
;54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R
\'Jay of higher funding based upon the number of
Post Graduate student enrolled and number of Ph.
Os awarded each year:
4. The Committee could consider the issue of faculty •
induction and development. Measures to improve
8
the strength of llT faculty may be suggested for
adoption and implementation;
~· To suggest a self primed system within the llTs to
achieve the optimal level of intake of students each
c year (UG and PG), which but for the MHRD initiated
OSC expansion programme has remained
stagnant. The Committee could explore the
possibility of releasing funds to the Institute on per
student basis to incentivise growth;
D
6. To suggest means to raise the resources/corpus of
the llTs through research project from the
Government, Industry, Consultancy, Donations from
alumni, etc., and to explore the possibility of
matching grants from the Ministry;
E
7. During the XI Plan period, the llTs have been in an
expansive mode in that it doubled its numbers from
7 to 15. The Committee to take stock of the present
expansion programme and also suggest the future
F course of action in terms of inclusion, expansion
and excellence in the XII Plan period and beyond;
8. The Committee will also look into possible synergies
that could be developed from not only interaction
G and collaboration amongst the llTs, e.g., consortium
of llTs to take up research projects etc., but also
linking up with other national Institutes like llMs,
llSERs, llSc., llTs, NITs, etc. The Committee will also
look into the role that llTs have been playing and
could play in the future to increase its role as a
H i
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR v. 65b
RAJA RAM VERMA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
human resource and technology provider in support A
of inclusive national development in a rapidly
developing/growing economy; and
9. The Committee would also review a few similar
exercises that have taken place elsewhere in the
B
world to understand the process involved to arrive
at Gredible recommendations. For this purpose, the
I I Committee could invite a few eminent leaders from
some of the successful institutions for discussions
and advice. The Committee would also consult
different stakeholders, e.g., llT Management, C
Faculty, Alumni, Industry, S&T agencies, Technical
Education experts, etc. The Committee may also
take into account Prof. P. Rama Rao Committee
recommendations and others whlle working out a
road-map for llTs to scale new heights." D
49. The learned Solicitor further argued relying on a
communication dated 22.7.2010 that in order to minimize the
Government's interference in the functioning of the I.I.Ts, it has
been decided that the employees of the I.I.Ts instead of E
addressing their grievance directly to the Ministry or directly to
the Visitor should refer their grievances or representations
within the institute and institute may evolve a procedure for
redressing grievance and appeals of such employees so that
the Ministry does not have to intervene. The purpose of issuing F
the said communication, which has been disclosed in para 3
thereof, is set out below:-
"! shall be grateful if all references to the Ministry are sent
in the rarest of cases. This will go a long way in helping
the Division to discharge its responsibilities more G
efficiently and at the same time strengthen the autonomy
issues of the institutes."
50. The learned Solicitor also argued that the Council in
its 39th meeting dated 28.1.2009 recommended that the age H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A of superannuation of the Directors of 1.1.T should be enhanced
to 70 years and the age of superannuation for faculty members
should be enhanced to 65 years. It has also been brought to
our notice that the Visitor of the Institute, President of India, has
approved the said proposal for making suitable amendment in _
s the statutes of 1.1.T. The approval of the Visitor for making
suitable amendments in the statutes of 1.1.T has also been
disclosed before this Court and in the communication dated
20.7.2010 on behalf of the second respondent it has been
made clear as follows:-
c "It has also been noticed that many of the provisions
contained in the Statutes of llTs have become obsolete or
are not updated. You are advised to initiate action to -
update the provisions of the Statutes. The Statutes of llT
Roorkee which are available on the website of UT Roorkee
D could be used as a model for updating the Statutes."
51. The learned Solicitor also brought to our notice that the
Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development
has already set up on 29.8.2008 a Committee under the
E Chairmanship of Professor Goverdhan Mehta and five others
to consider the revision of pay scales of the faculty and scientific
staff of Central Technical Institutes and Professor Goverdhan
Mehta Committee has on 7.02.2009 submitted its report
regarding revision in pay and pursuant to such report of the
F Goverdhan Mehta Committee, the Government of India, Ministry
of Human Resource Development has on 18.8.2009 and
16.9.2009 decided to revise the. pay of teaching and members
· of other staff of centrally funded institutions. The attention of this
Court has been drawn to the fact that the revision which has
been approved by the Ministry is higher than the one
G recommended by the Goverdhan Mehta Committee. In the
· forwarding letter given by the said committee, the Chairman of
the Pay Committee opined as follows:-
"The Pay Committee is of the considered opini<m that the
H
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR v. 657
RAJA RAM VERMA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
acceptance of the recommendations would attract and A
retain outstanding academic talent in the field of teaching
in technical and professional institutions. It would also help
in the emergence of India as a major player in the world
of Science and Technology."
B
52. From the materials which have been disclosed before
this Court in the additional affidavit filed by the second
respondent, this Court is of the view that autonomy of those
institutes is not being dilµted. On the other hand an attempt is
made by the Government of India to improve the academic C
ambience of these institutes by recommending extension of
age 9f retirement of the Director of the Institute and of members
of the academic faculty. Attempt has also been made to attract
. the best talent by a progressive revision of the pay scale. From
the report of Professor Mehta Committee some portions are
excerpted below and which would show that relevant aspects D
of strengthening the autonomy of the institute coupled with
improving the performance of the institute as. a centre of
. excellence has been enga~ing the attention of the Government.
of India. Those key concerns addressed in the report are set
out below:- E ,
"1.5 The New Challenges
The key, therefore, lies in the expansion - more than ever
before- of our higher education base, particularly of
science and technology and a better societal context F
connect. We must, therefore.convert this potential of
becoming a developed society and a leading player in
World affair in the 21st Century into a reality - and do it
real fast. We need many more quality institutions of global G.
academic standing with the highest possible standards in
Science, Technology and Management. And also, we need
to expand the intake of the existing institutions, to provide
opportunities and access to more students, especially
from t~e socially challengfd sections of the society.
! . H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Recent upheavals in the world economy have underscored
once again and more urgently the need for investing large
resources into quality higher education so as to provide a
platform for accelerated innovations, developing cutting
edge and sustainable technologies to take care of our
B emerging needs and also to play a more significant role
in the recovery of the world economy.
1.10 What needs to be done?
As is obvious from the above, teaching institutions like the
C llT, llM, NIT etc. need to offer, as a first step, better pay
scales. And it is not just the scales of pay but a whole
package of financial incentives, allowances and other
benefits that needs to be offered to faculty members, more
specifically to make it attractive at the entry level.
D
However, it may also be recognized that better 'pay
package' though essential may not be sufficient for
attracting competent persons to the realm of teaching and
academia. Institutions may also have to offer better
research support and facilities.
E
Institutions also need to create and strengthen more
research friendly environment and foster creativity in order
to attract new entrants in to the portal of the academic
world and also to retain the existing faculty. Additionally,
F institutions need to devise robust instruments of peer
assessment to recognize and reward outstanding merit
among the members of the faculty."
53. In view of such disclosure of materials, this Court is
G satisfied that the autonomy of these institutes is preserved and
they are structurally built up as centres of academic excellence
and the concern of the Court has been answered and satisfied
to a large extent.
54. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. However, this Court
H
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR v. 659
RAJA RAM VERMA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
finds that the first respondent had to stay in the quarter for some A
time more than the scheduled period which is permissible under
the Rules and the appellant has charged penal rent for the
same. If the first respondent makes a suitable representation
within six weeks, from the date of receiving a copy of this
judgment, for reducing the amount which has been charged as B
penal rent from him, the appellant will consider and dispose of
the same by a speaking order within two months thereafter in
accordance with law but by taking a sympathetic view.
55. The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is C
set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.
D.G. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Administrative law"Sign in to search