Bombay High Court
Arjun Ganpatrao Mahajan vs The Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth And ... on 13 July, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1996(2)BOMCR120
JUDGMENT H.W. Dhabe, J.
1. petitioner has claimed declaration in this writ petition that the age of retirement prescribed for the academic staff of the Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth at 58 years under the provisions of Statute 138(a) framed under the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Statute, 1990 read with Rule 10(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and Rule 10.1 of the Punjabrao Agricultural University (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Services Rules, 1971 is invalid and unconstitutional and that the age of retirement of the members of the academic staff in the service of P.K.V. including the petitioner should be 60 years. Accordingly, he has claimed that the notice of retirement dated 24-6-1993 issued by the respondent No. 1 P.K.V. seeking to retire him from service with effect from 30-6-1993 upon completion of age of 58 years should be set aside and he should be allowed to continue in service till completion of the age of 60 years.
2. The facts are that the petitioner, whose date of birth is 1-7-1935, was appointed as an Agricultural Supervisor with effect from 14-10-1959 in the Agricultural Department of the State of Bombay under the Superintending Agricultural Officer, Pune. He was promoted as Agricultural Officer in the service of the State Government with effect from 7-3-1963. According to him, he was thereafter posted as Lecturer in Agronomy in the Maharashtra Agriculture Service Class-II in the College of Agriculture with effect from 27-9-1966 as per the Order of Director of Agriculture, Pune, dated 25-8-66. It may be seen that the State Government decided to establish an Agricultural University in the State by the name Maharashtra Krishi Vidyapeeth, for which it enacted Maharashtra Agricultural University (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1967 (for short "K.V. Act, 1967) some of the provisions of which including its section 53 with which we are concerned came into force with effect from 1-1-1968, the remaining provisions coming into force with effect from 1-6-1968. A separate Agricultural University was formed by the State Government with a view to provide better facilities for education in agriculture and allied matters, and in particular for the development of agricultural sciences and for matters connected with the purposes aforesaid.
3. After the Agricultural University was formed under the K.V. Act, 1967, the Government decided to hand over the existing Government Agriculture Colleges with the entire staff therein to the said University. Section 53 was enacted in the K.V. Act, 1967 for the said purpose. What is pertinent to be seen in section 53 is that the Government employees who were to be transferred and to be absorbed in the Agricultural University were given a guarantee that their previous service conditions would not be varied to their disadvantage after their absorption as employees of the Agricultural University. The petitioner who, as already shown hereinabove, was working as a Lecturer in Agronomy in Maharashtra Agriculture Service Class-II, was allocated to the Agricultural University and was thereafter with effect from 14-7-1969 transferred to the post of Assistant Professor Agronomy which is equivalent to the post of a Lecturer in the Government College of Agriculture.
4. The Government had taken a policy decision to have separate Agricultural Universities in separate regions of the State and, therefore, as a first step towards the same, it enacted the Punjabrao Agricultural University (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1967 (for short "the P.K.V. Act") to establish an Agricultural University in the Vidarbha region having the University area comprising of revenue divisions of Nagpur and Aurangabad till the date of commencement of the Marathwada Agricultural University Act, 1972 which was enacted to establish the Marathwada Agricultural University for the revenue divisions of Aurangabad. Section 53 of the P.K.V. Act provided for absorption of the staff of the Krishi Vidyapeeth constituted earlier under the K.V. Act, 1967 as well as the staff of the Government which was allocated to the said University. A similar guarantee that their existing conditions of service would not be varied to their disadvantage by the P.K.V. as was given in section 53 of the K.V. Act, 1967 was also given under section 53 of the said P.K.V. Act to the Government servants who were allocated to Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth (for short the P.K.V.).
5. The P.K.V. was actually formed from 20-10-1969 and the services of the petitioner were allocated to the said University under the provisions of section 53 of P.K.V. Act where he was finally absorbed in the service of the said University w.e.f. 20-10-1969 as per the orders issued by the said University on 17-8-1971 and 25-8-1971. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Reader in Agronomy in the P.K.V. which post was redesignated as Associate Professor with effect from 29-12-1977. While continuing in the said post, the petitioner was served with a notice of retirement dated 25-3-1993 by which he was sought to be retired from service with effect from 30-6-1993 by the respondent No. 1 University (P.K.V.) on completion of age of 58 years, which according to the said University is the age of superannuation for its academic staff. It is the case of petitioner that for the University teachers, the age of retirement has to be uniformly 60 years and therefore, the relevant rule under which the petitioner was sought to be retired on completion of age of 58 years was illegal and unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Feeling thus aggrieved by the aforesaid notice of retirement dated 26-4-1993, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged the following contentions before us:
i) That, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Government Resolution dated 17-11-1978 (Annexure II) the age of superannuation of teachers in the Agricultural University is 60 years and therefore the petitioner cannot be retired on completion of age of 58 years.
ii) That, the conditions of service of the petitioner are those which were applicable to him prior to his allocation to the Maharashtra Agricultural University as revised from time to time and, therefore, when the uniform age of retirement of teachers in Government Colleges became 60 years by virtue of the judgment of this Court in the case of Association of Maharashtra Education Services Class II Officers & others v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1990 Mah.L.J. 161, the age of retirement for the petitioner should also have been fixed at 60 years and not 58 years particularly when there was no option to the petitioner to go back in Government service; and
iii) That, the existing service rule made applicable to the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 University is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it prescribes the age of retirement of 58 years contrary to the National Policy which has laid down the age of 60 years as the age of superannuation for the University teachers.
7. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 University has vehemently contested the above contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.
8. Before we consider the above contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, we may also refer to the further developments in regard to the Agricultural Universities in the Maharashtra State. After enactment of the P.K.V. Act, hereinbefore referred to, the Government changed its views and thought that there should be common law for all the Agricultural Universities in the State of Maharashtra, and therefore, passed the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) Act, 1983 (for short the M.A.U. Act, 1983) to consolidate and amend the law relating to the four Agricultural Universities in the State. By enactment of this consolidated law, the four separate Acts constituting separate Agricultural Universities including the P.K.V. Act were repealed. However, all the four Universities were deemed to be incorporated under the provisions of the M.A.U. Act, 1983 as provided in section 3 thereof.
9. It is necessary to see that previously, i.e. prior to enactment of K.V. Act, 1967, the Colleges, Government as well as non-Government in the Vidarbha region in all the faculties including Agriculture were all affiliated to Nagpur University which was governed by its own enactment, viz. the Nagpur University Act, 1963, which was subsequently repealed and the new Act viz. the Nagpur University Act, 1974 was enacted in its place. It is material to see that in regard to the academic staff of the Nagpur University, its non-Government affiliated Colleges, and the Government Colleges affiliated to it, there were separate conditions of service governing them. As regards the academic staff of the Nagpur University, it was governed by the rules and regulations framed by the Nagpur University till 1-1-1973 and thereafter from the aforesaid date by the Nagpur University Teachers' Service and Conditions of Employment Ordinance, 1972 which is Ordinance No. 122 framed by the Nagpur University. What is to be seen from the said Ordinance No. 122 for our purpose is that according to its Clause 51, the age of retirement for the University teachers laid down therein was 60 years.
10. As regards the Colleges affiliated to the Nagpur University, the conditions of service of the academic staff therein were governed by its Ordinance No. 24 viz. the College Code, However, as regards the Government Colleges admitted to the privileges of the Nagpur University, Clause 2(2) of the said College Code Ordinance No. 24 provided that Articles 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 35, and 36 of the said Ordinance were only made applicable to them and the remaining provisions were not.
11. It is material to see that as per Clause 38(2) of the said College Code Ordinance No. 24, the teachers in the affiliated Colleges were required to be appointed on a written contract as prescribed in Schedule A to the said Ordinance which was a statutory contract as held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Premlata v. G.S. Tombe College, 1981 Mah.L.J. 332 (F.B.), with the result that whether such a written contract was actually executed or not, the terms and conditions laid down therein were binding upon the parties. It is para 4 of the said statutory contract Form in Schedule A which provides for age of superannuation as 60 years for the teachers in the affiliated Colleges. However, as referred to hereinbefore since the provisions of Clause 38 of the said College Code Ordinance No. 24 were not applicable to the Government Colleges affiliated to the Nagpur University, the said provision in para 4 of the statutory contract of service relating to retirement incorporated in Schedule A of the College Code Ordinance No. 24 was applicable to the teachers in the non-Government affiliated Colleges only and the teachers in the Government Colleges affiliated to the Nagpur University were not governed by the said provision relating to retirement incorporated in the said Schedule A of the College Code Ordinance No. 24.
12. It is then material to see that as regards the teachers in the Government College affiliated to the Nagpur University, their conditions of service were regulated by the Rules framed by the State Government for its employees viz. Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 (for short the BCSR). What is material for our purpose to be seen is that according to Rule 161(a) of the BCSR, the age of retirement for Government servants including its academic staff, but excluding Class IV employees, was 58 years. It is thus clear that the academic staff of the Nagpur University, the non-Government affiliated Colleges, and the Government Colleges affiliated to the Nagpur University was governed by separate set of conditions of service and although the age of retirement for the academic staff of the Nagpur University and the non-Government affiliated Colleges was 60 years under the separate rules applicable to them, the age of retirement for the academic staff of the Government affiliated Colleges was 58 years.
13. It is next necessary to see that there is University Grants Commission (for short U.G.C.) established under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short U.G.C. Act ) for promotion and co-ordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination, and research in Universities. With a view to discharge its functions under the Act, the U.G.C. can allocate and disburse grants to the Universities out of its own funds. For improvement of standard of University education, the U.G.C. also seeks to improve the pay-scales and other conditions of service of the University and College teachers. Its recommendations in this regard are forwarded to the Central Government and the State Government and also to the Universities which take steps to implement them by taking necessary action under the University statutes.
14. The U.G.C. had initially made recommendations in the year 1966-67 for revision of pay-scales of the University and College teachers in the faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce and Education which recommendations were given effect to by the State Government by its G.R. dated 6-11-1967. The U.G.C. thereafter appointed in 1973 a committee popularly known as "Sen Committee" to go into the problems relating to the governance of the Universities and the Colleges. The recommendations of the said Committee were accepted by the U.G.C. in its meeting held on 13-4-1973. One of the recommendations made by the said Committee which is material for our purpose was that, the age of superannuation of University and College teachers should be 60 years and that thereafter no further extension in service should be given to them. The said recommendations of the U.G.C., however, were in respect of the University and College teachers in the faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce and Education only. They were accepted by the Central Government whereafter the State Government implemented them by incorporating them in the G.R. dated 4-10-1975 issued by it.
15. However, the said G.R. dated 4-10-1975 was challenged by way of a writ petition in this Court by the Association of University and College teachers, since some of the conditions therein relating to qualifications and work-load etc. were according to the said Association, onerous to the teachers. During the pendency of the said writ petition in this Court, there was a consensus reached between the Government and the said Association as a result of which in supersession of the aforesaid G.R. dated 4-10-1975 the State Government issued new G.R. dated 25-10-1977. In para 8 of the terms and conditions attached to the said G.R. dated 25-10-1977, it was provided that for the teachers in the University and non-Government affiliated Colleges, the age of retirement would be 60 years, but for teachers in the Government Colleges, they would be governed by the relevant rules framed by the Government.
16. There was further improvement and/or revision of pay-scales of the University and College teachers in the faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce and Education. The said G.R. dated 27-2-1989 provided for certain other conditions of service also. As per Clause 26 of the said G.R. dated 27-2-1989, the age of retirement for the University and College teachers was 60 years. However, an exception was made in the case of the teachers in the Government Colleges and Institutes of Science where the age of retirement was to continue as 58 years as before.
17. It is significant to note that the above G.Rs. issued by the State Government on the basis of the U.G.C. recommendations accepted by the Central Government are in respect of revision of pay-scales and improvement of conditions of service of the teachers in Non-Agricultural Universities and the Colleges affiliated to them in the faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce and Education. It is further significant to notice that as already pointed out hereinbefore, according to their own conditions of service, the age of retirement of the teachers in the Nagpur University and the non-Government Colleges affiliated to it, was already 60 years and so far as the teachers in the Government Colleges were concerned, the age of retirement for them, as also shown hereinbefore, was 58 years as per their conditions of service regulated by the B.C.S.R. applicable to the Government servants. While accepting the U.G.C. recommendations, the State Government has maintained the aforesaid earlier provisions relating to the age of retirement of the teachers in the University, the non-Government affiliated Colleges, and the Government affiliated Colleges.
18. It is further significant to notice that all the conditions of service of teachers in non-Agricultural Universities and the Government and non-Government Colleges affiliated to them were not regulated by the terms and conditions recommended by the U.G.C. for entitlement to the revised pay-scales and were not thus uniform. In fact so far as the teachers of the Nagpur University were concerned, there was statutory provision in section 57 of the Nagpur University Act, 1974 for making selection and appointment of University teachers as per the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted as provided therein. As regards the teachers in the Government Colleges, their selection and appointment was regulated by the conditions of service laid down by the Government viz. selection through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (for short the M.P.S.C.). It is only as regards the teachers in the non-Government affiliated Colleges that their selection and appointment was made through the Selection Committee recommended by the U.G.C. while making recommendations about revision of pay-scales of the University and College teachers on the basis of the terms and conditions attached to the said revision of pay-scales. It is, however material to see that for implementing the said recommendations of the U.G.C. after they were accepted by the State Government as per its G.R. dated 25-10-1977, the Nagpur University framed Statute No. 8 of 1979 to implement the said G.R. dated 25-10-1977 in appendix 1 of which the constitution of the Selection Committee for selection and appointment of the College-teachers was provided in terms of the recommendations of the U.G.C.
19. Two things are clear from the above narration of facts. One is that the recommendations of the U.G.C. in relation to the pay-scales and other conditions of service of the University and College teachers are not pro-prio-vigore applicable to them but they have to be implemented by the State Government and the Universities concerned by taking recourse to relevant rules and regulations in that regard. It is for this reason that the State Government has issued necessary Government Resolutions to implement them and the Universities have taken action under the relevant University Acts to implement the said Government Resolutions incorporating the recommendations of the U.G.C. The other thing which is clear is that the recommendations of the U.G.C. are in respect of the University and College teachers in the faculties of Arts, Science Commerce and Education and the above Government resolution incorporating them are, therefore, not applicable to the teachers in the Agricultural Universities and the Colleges affiliated to them.
20. As regards the teachers in the Agricultural Universities and the Colleges affiliated to them, the question of revision of pay-scales had engaged the mind of the competent authorities regarding them. It may be seen that like the U.G.C. in regard to the non-Agricultural Universities, the Controlling Authority in regard to the Agricultural Universities is the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (for short I.C.A.R.). The question of revision of pay-scales of the teachers in the Agricultural Universities and the Colleges affiliated to them on the same pattern as the teachers in the non-Agricultural Universities in the faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce and Education was originally under consideration of the Government of India. After I.C.A.R. confirmed that it would bear 30% of the additional financial burden for adoption of the U.G.C. pay-scales for the eligible academic staff in the Agricultural Universities for the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 the Government of India decided to extend the same pattern of pay-scale to the academic staff in the Agricultural Universities as recommended by the U.G.C. in respect of the academic staff of the non-Agricultural University. Following it, the State Government also issued G.R. dated 17-11-1978 by which it decided to extend the benefit of the revised U.G.C. pay-scales to the academic staff working in the four Agricultural Universities (excepting those working in the two affiliated Colleges under the P.K.V.) with retrospective effect from 1-1-1973.
21. The State Government, however, imposed certain conditions as contained in Annexure-II of the said G.R. dated 17-11-1978 for introduction of the said revised pay-scales. Clause (vii) of Annexure II of the said G.R. dated 17-11-1978 shows that the age of superannuation for the teachers in the Agricultural Universities is 60 years. It is, however brought to our notice that immediately after the said G.R. was issued on 17-11-1978, the State Government had issued instructions on 13-12-1978 that the conditions given in the said G.R. dated 17-11-1978 (Annexure-II) are the general conditions appended to the scheme of the Government of India for revisions of pay-scales on the pattern of the U.G.C. revised pay-scales. Regarding Condition No. (vii) in Annexure-II to the G.R. dated 17-11-1978, it was clarified by the Government that the age of superannuation of teachers in Agricultural University should be the same as was already specified in the Statutes/Service/Rules of the respective Agricultural University, or as per the relevant Rules under the B.C.S.R. followed by the Agricultural University in the absence of the Statutes/Service Rules.
22. It is material to see that after the Agricultural Universities were established under the Acts referred to hereinabove, the Government Colleges of agriculture were made constituent Colleges as defined in the said Acts. The definition of a "Constituent College" given in the said Acts shows that the said Colleges were under direct management of the Agricultural Universities concerned and had thus ceased to be the Government Colleges of agriculture from the date the said Acts came into force. The academic staff of the said Government Colleges was thereafter governed by the conditions of service regulated by the Statutes or Rules of the respective Universities except that as regards the academic staff which was transferred from Government to Agricultural Universities, its conditions of service prior to transfer were guaranteed under section 53 of the K.V. Act. 1967 and thereafter also under section 53 of the P.K.V. Act, as shown above. It is, however, material to see that at the time of transfer to and absorption in the Agricultural Universities of the academic staff of the Government, their condition of service as regards the age of retirement was contained in Rule 161(a) of the B.C.S.R. The said Rule 161(a) showed that their age of retirement was 58 years. It is thus clear that what is guaranteed under section 53 of the K.V. Act, 1967 and also under section 53 of the P.K.V. Act is the age of retirement at 58 years in accordance with the provision of the aforesaid Rule 161(a) of the B.C.S.R. In fact it is only when the U.G.C. while making recommendations for revision of pay-scales of the University and College teachers in the faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce and Education in the non-Agricultural Universities laid down 60 years of age as one of the conditions of service for the University and the College teachers that the academic staff in the Government Colleges pressed their demand for uniformity in age of retirement, thus claiming that their age of retirement should also be 60 years.
23. As regards the question of implementation of the aforesaid G.R. dated 17-11-1978 in respect of the academic staff of the P.K.V. the Executive Council of the P.K.V. had passed a resolution on 11-12-1978 resolving that it would accept the revised U.G.C. pay-scales and the conditions in the aforesaid G.R. dated 17-11-1978 except those relating to the non-applicability to the affiliated Colleges and the age of superannuation given in Annexure II of the said G.R. dated 17-11-1978. As regards the Colleges affiliated to the Agriculture Universities, there was a separate G.R. issued by the State Government on 9-10-1979 by which the revised U.G.C. pay-scales were made applicable to the teaching staff of the said Colleges, viz. Shri Shivaji Agricultural College, Amravati, and Anandaniketan College of Agriculture affiliated to P.K.V. Clause (vii) of the conditions of service incorporated in Annexure II of the said G.R. dated 9-10-1979 shows that the age of retirement for teachers in the affiliated Colleges is 60 years.
24. However the note below Annexure II of the aforesaid G.R. dated 9-10-1979 contains a clarification that as regards the age of superannuation laid down in Clause (vii) thereof, the instructions given in the aforesaid Government letter dated 13-12-1978 should be followed. But perusal of the letter of the State Government dated 13-12-1978 shows that there is no clarification given in the said letter in respect of the age of retirement of the teachers in the Agricultural Universities and the Colleges affiliated to them. It is, however, pertinent to see that the non-Government Colleges affiliated to the Agricultural Universities were prior to formation of separate Agricultural Universities affiliated to Nagpur University and according to the College Code Ordinance No. 24 applicable to the teachers of the Non-Government Colleges affiliated to the Nagpur University their age of retirement as provided in para 4 of the statutory contract of service in-corporated in Schedule A thereof was 60 years which age of retirement is maintained as per 2 Clause (vii) of Annexure II of the G.R. dated 9-10-1979.
25. There was subsequent revision of pay-scales of the teachers in the Agricultural Universities with effect from 1-1-1986 as per the G.R. dated 17-3-1989 in the light of the revision of pay-scales of the teachers in the non-Agricultural Universities and the Colleges affiliated to them in the faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce and Education made by the U.G.C. and implemented by the State Government as per its G.R. dated 27-2-1989 with effect from the said date i.e. 1-1-1986. Annexure I of the said G.R. dated 17-3-1989 contains the revised pay-scales made applicable to the academic staff of the Agricultural Universities with effect from 1-1-1986 and Annexure II thereof contains the conditions for introducing the said revised pay-scales. What is material to be seen for our purpose is that Clause (10) of the said Annexure II states that the age of superannuation for members of the academic staff should continue to be 58 years hitherto before.
26. The above Clause (10) of the Annexure II to the aforesaid G.R. dated 17-3-1989 shows that the age of superannuation for members of the academic staff was fixed at 58 years under the University Statutes applicable to the Agricultural Universities. It may be seen in this regard that after the M.A.U. Act, 1983 came into force and as its object was to have common conditions of service in all the four Agricultural Universities, there was a co-ordinating committee of the Vice-Chancellors constituted by the Government. The said committee in its meeting held on 29-1-1990 recommended to the State Government that as the U.G.C. revised pay-scales were made applicable to the members of the academic staff of the Agricultural Universities and as the age of the Agricultural Universities and as the age of superannuation was fixed at 60 years by U.G.C. while revising the pay-scales, the State Government should also fix the same age of 60 years as the age of superannuation for the members of the academic staff of the Agricultural Universities. However, the said recommendation about the age of superannuation of 60 years for the academic staff of the Agricultural Universities of the co-ordinating Committee of the Vice-Chancellors of the four Universities does not appear to have been accepted by the State Government.
27. It may be seen in this regard that after the above decision of the Co-ordinating Committee of the Vice-Chancellors of the four Agricultural Universities in the State, the State Government has itself as per its G.R. dated 12-7-1990, issued under section 38(6) of the K.V. Act, 1983, framed common statutes for all the four Agricultural Universities out of which Statute No. 138 deals with the question of pay, allowances, leave and other general conditions of service of the employees of the University, affiliated Colleges and recognised institutions etc. In Clause (1) of the said Statute 138, it is provided that the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules enumerated therein as amended from time to time and as applicable to the State Government employees should be applicable mutatis-mutandis to the employees of Agricultural University, its affiliated Colleges and the recognised institutions other than those recognised for research and specialised higher learning. In Clause (2) of the aforesaid Statute 138, it is provided that the employees of the affiliated Colleges and recognised institutions who were in service prior to the date of passing of the said statute should be governed by such terms and conditions of service contract, if any agreed to between the employees and the institution in respect of age of superannuation which should not exceed 60 years in any case.
28. Since the aforesaid Statute No. 138 has adopted and has made applicable to the academic staff of the Agricultural University and its affiliated Colleges, Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, then in view of Rule 10(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, (for short the Pension Rules), the age of retirement for the academic staff of the Agricultural University and its affiliated Colleges is 58 years save for the exception carved out in Clause (2) of the said Statute No. 138 in respect of the employees of the affiliated Colleges and the institution for whom the service contracts provide for a different age of retirement not exceeding 60 years. We have already pointed out hereinbefore that so far as the affiliated Colleges, viz. Shri Shivaji College of Agriculture, Amravati and Anandaniketan College of Agriculture, Warora, are concerned, the age of retirement for the teachers in the said Colleges was 60 years as the statutory service contract incorporated in Schedule A of the College Code Ordinance No. 24 of the Nagpur University continued to be applicable to them even after their affiliation to the Agricultural University i.e. the P.K.V. It is, thus, clear that under Statute No. 138, which is applicable with effect from 12-7-1990, the age of retirement for the academic staff of the Agricultural Universities is 58 years.
29. We may also refer to another salient feature as regards the service set-up of the Government Agricultural and non-Agricultural Colleges. It is clear from the judgment of this Court in Associations' case cited supra, that as regards the Arts, Science and Commerce Colleges of the State Government, there is Maharashtra Education Service Class II and Class I for the Lecturers, Readers and Professors who are appointed in the said Colleges. However, as regards the Government Agricultural Colleges i.e., prior to the time when they became constituent Colleges of Agricultural Universities there was Maharashtra Agricultural Service, Class II and Class I which appears to be a common service for the administrative as well as the academic staff belonging to the said service. The appointment of the petitioner in this petition was made not to the Maharashtra Education Service Class II of the Government but was made to the Maharashtra Agricultural Service Class II as is stated by him in para 2 of his writ petition.
30. It is then material to see that in the Nagpur University Act, 1974, the expression "Teacher" is defined in section 2(30) to mean the academic staff in any conducted constituent or affiliated Colleges of the University referred to therein including any person imparting instructions or guide research. Similar is the definition of the expression "Teacher of the University" given in section 2(31) of the said relating to the teachers appointed by the University in its departments or the Colleges conducted by it. As is clear from the said definitions, the teachers in the non-Agricultural Universities are principally required to do the work of teaching and research in their Colleges, departments or institutions.
31. However, as regards the teachers or the academic staff in the Agricultural Universities or the Colleges affiliated to them, it is first necessary to see that there is no definition of the expression "Teacher" given in the Statute establishing the Agricultural Universities. But perusal of the relevant provisions of the said Statute/s i.e. the K.V. Act, 1967, the P.K.V. Act or the M.A.U. Act, 1983 shows that apart from the work of teaching and research, they are also required to carry on extension education activities. The expression "Extension Education" is defined in section 2(d) of the K.V. Act, 1967 as also of the P.K.V. Act and section 2(g) of the M.A.U. Act, 1983. The definitions in the said three enactments are almost identical, For appreciating the scope of the extension education activities required to be undertaken by the academic staff of the Agricultural Universities, we reproduce the definition given in the present Act i.e. M.A.U. Act, 1983 applicable to them.
Section 2(g). "Extension education" means the educational activities concerned with the training of the farmers and home makers and other groups serving Agriculture, in improved agricultural practices and the various phases of scientific technology related to Agriculture and Agricultural production and marketing. It includes the work which may be done through meetings demonstrations and other methods for teaching improved Agricultural practices and the training of workers required for the conduct of those educational activities."
32. It is then pertinent to see that Chapter VII and in particular sections 45, 46, 47 thereof in the K.V. Act 1967 as well as in the P.K.V. Act deal with teaching, research and extension education programmes in the Agricultural Universities and the Colleges affiliated to it. As regards the present M.A.U. Act, 1983, its Chapter VII and in particular section 47, 48 and 49 thereof deal with teaching, research and extension education programmes in the Agricultural Universities and the Colleges affiliated to them. It is clear from the said programmes that the material difference in the work of a teacher in the Agricultural University and the College affiliated to it and the teacher in the non-Agricultural University and the College affiliated to it is that the former has to do field work and has direct contact with the farmers and other rural people whom he is inter alia required to educate about the new methods of cultivation. The members of the academic staff in the Agricultural Universities and its affiliated Colleges also help them in solving their problems relating to Agriculture which is not required to be done by the teacher in the non-Agricultural University and the Colleges affiliated to it.
33. Keeping in mind the above background about the service set-up and the duties and functions discharged by the members of the academic staff in the Agricultural University and in affiliated Colleges as well as the members of the academic staff in the non-Agricultural University and the Colleges affiliated to it, we proceed to consider the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in this writ petition.
34. As regards the first contention that according to Clause (vii) of Annexure II of the G.R. dated 17-11-1978 relating to revision of pay-scales of the academic staff in the Agricultural Universities, their age of superannuation is 60 years and therefore the petitioner should be allowed to continue till completion of 60 years of age, the petitioner cannot take the benefit of the above G.R. dated 17-11-1978 issued by the State Government because immediately after the above G.R. dated 17-11-1978 was issued, the State Government by its letter dated 13-12-1978, hereinbefore referred to, had clarified the position and had directed all the Agricultural Universities that the age of superannuation of teachers in the Agricultural Universities should be the age which had already been specified in the Statutes/Rules of the respective Agricultural Universities or as per the rules framed by the Government under the B.S.C.R. followed by the Agricultural Universities in the absence of the Statutes/Rules. It appears that the above mistake was committed by the State Government in Clause (vii) of Annexure II of its G.R. dated 17-11-1978 because as pointed out by it in its aforesaid letter dated 13-12-1978, it inadvertently copied the condition in the guidelines of the Government of India addressed to it which guidelines are on the pattern of the U.G.C. guidelines in respect of the non-Agricultural Colleges but as it is clear, the said guidelines are not completely given effect to by the State Government while implementing the revision of pay-scales by the U.G.C. in respect of the non-Agricultural Colleges as per its G.R. dated 25-10-1977 and also the subsequent G.R. dated 27-2-1989. It may be seen that as per the aforesaid G.Rs. dated 25-10-1977 and 27-2-1989, as already shown, the age of retirement of 60 years was laid down only in regard to the teachers of the Nagpur University and Non-Government Colleges affiliated to it because for them it was already under the rules applicable to them 60 years but not to the teachers in the Government Colleges for whom it was 58 years under the rules applicable to them. The same age of retirement was thus maintained for the teachers of the University and the non-Government and Government Colleges affiliated to it.
35. It is then pertinent to see that even the Executive Council of the P.K.V. had not accepted the said provision of Clause (vii) of Annexure II to the G.R. dated 17-11-1978 relating to the age of superannuation as is clear from the resolution dated 11-12-1978 hereinbefore referred to. The age of retirement of the members of academic staff of the Agricultural Universities thus continued to be 58 years as provided in Rule 10.1 of Chapter X of the Service Rules, 1971 i.e. Statute 91 framed under section 36 of the P.K.V. Act which Rules were then applicable to the P.K.V. employees including its academic staff. The mistake in the aforesaid Clause (vii) of Annexure II of the G.R. dated 17-11-1978 was thereafter corrected when at the time of the next revision of pay-scales of the academic staff of the Agricultural Universities as per the G.R. dated 17-3-1989, Clause 10 of Annexure II thereof provided that the age of retirement of the members of the academic staff of the Agricultural Universities should continue to be 58 years hitherto- before.
36. It is then necessary to see that the conditions of service of the employees of the Agricultural Universities viz. P.K.V. in the instant case are governed by the provisions of the Act and the relevant Statutes or Rules framed thereunder to regulate them. Therefore, unless the action was taken by the Competent Authority under the University Act applicable to the Agricultural University to introduce the condition of service relating to the age of superannuation, on its own force the age of retirement of 58 years contained in Clause (vii) of Annexure II of the G.R. dated 17-11-1978 could not have been made applicable to the academic staff of the Agricultural University. For all these reasons, the petitioner cannot thus get the benefit of the above Clause (vii) of Annexure II of the G.R. dated 17-11-1978 so as to claim that his age of retirement should be 60 years.
37. Turning to the second contention, the claim of the petitioner in the instant case is that since he was in Government service prior to his allocation and absorption in the P.K.V., he had a guarantee that his condition of service as a Government Servant would not be varied to his disadvantage after his transfer to and absorption in the P.K.V. as provided in section 53 of the K.V. Act, 1967 as well as under section 53 of the P.K.V. Act. It may be seen that the age of retirement was at that time prescribed as 58 years under Rule 161(a) of the B.C.S.R. applicable to the Government servants. However, with effect from 15-8-1982, Rule 10(1) of the Pension Rules which regulates the condition of service of the Government Servants as to their age of retirement from the said date has also prescribed the same age of 58 years as the age of retirement for the Government Servants. It may then be seen that as provided in Rule 10.1 of Chapter X of the Service Rules, 1971 applicable to the employees of the P.K.V., the age of retirement for the employees like the petitioner was 58 years. Even after the enactment of the present Consolidating Act i.e. M.A.U. Act, 1983, common Statute No. 138 framed thereunder, hereinbefore referred to, makes applicable to the academic staff of the Agricultural Universities the Pension Rules applicable to the Government servants according to Rule 10(1) of which the age of retirement is 58 years. It is thus clear that after the transfer and absorption of the petitioner in the service of the P.K.V., his condition of service as to his age of retirement was not varied to his disadvantage.
38. It is, however, urged on behalf of the petitioner that the conditions of service of the petitioner which are guaranteed, are the conditions of service applicable to the Government servants as revised from time to time thereafter. What is, them urged for the purpose of this petition is that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Association of Maharashtra Education Service Class-II Officers and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1990 Mah.L.J. 161 cited supra, the age of superannuation of the petitioner has to be treated as 60 years as a Government servant prior to his transfer and absorption as a Lecturer in the P.K.V. and thus as provided in section 53 of the K.V. Act, 1967 or the P.K.V. Act the said age of retirement has to be held as guaranteed. To appreciate the above contention, it is necessary to understand the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the above case and then to consider its applicability to the facts in the instant case.
39. The principal question which was considered in the judgment in the case cited supra was about the age of retirement of the teachers in the Government Colleges who were the members of the Maharashtra Educational Service Class-II (Collegiate Branch). In this regard, this Court pointed out in the said case that the U.G.C. was the Apex Body which was entrusted under the U.G.C. Act with the responsibility of improving the standard of teaching, and for co-ordination and maintenance of standards in higher education. It also pointed that for achieving the above objective, the U.G.C. had taken steps to improve the pay-scales of the University and College teachers and had also taken other measures to improve the standards of teaching by introducing certain conditions for making the revised pay-scales applicable to them. This Court then referred to the appointment of "Sen Committee" by the U.G.C. in 1973 for going into the problems relating to the governance of the University and College teachers and further to the fact that the said Committee had inter alia recommended the age of superannuation for all University and College teachers as 60 years, which recommendation was accepted by the U.G.C. in its meeting held on 30-4-1973. It also referred to the fact that the Government of India had also accepted the said recommendation of the U.G.C. relating to the age of retirement of the University and the College teachers. However, according to it, the State Government, as per its G.R. dated 25-10-1977 issued for implementing the recommendations of the U.G.C. relating to revision of pay-scales and other measures to be taken by the University and the Colleges accepted by the Government of India, fixed the age of superannuation as 60 years for the University and the non-Government College teachers only, but as regards the teachers in the Government Colleges, it left the same to be regulated by the relevant Government rules in that regard i.e. Rule 161(a) of the B.C.S.R. which was applicable at that time and which had laid down the age of retirement for Government servants as 58 years.
40. This Court then pointed out in the judgment cited supra that the U.G.C. had, after the appointment of the 4th Pay Commission for Central Government employees, appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri. R.O. Mehrotra to examine the present structure of emoluments and conditions of service of University and the College teachers and as per the recommendations of the said Committee, the U.G.C. had recommended to the Central Government the new revised pay scales and the measures to be taken by the University and the Colleges for improving the standard of teaching. What is important to be seen for our purpose is that according to it the U.G.C. had recommended again the age of retirement for University and College teachers as 60 years, which recommendations of the U.G.C. were accepted by the Central Government. However, as per its G.R. dated 27-2-1989, the State Government, while accepting the recommendation about the age of retirement as 60 years for the University and non-Government College teachers made an exception in Clause 26 relating to the age of superannuation of teachers in the Government Colleges and Institutes of Science for whom the age of retirement was continued as 58 years as there to before. It is pertinent to see that it is the aforesaid part of Clause 26 of the aforesaid G.R. dated 27-2-1989 which was the subject matter of challenge in the said case. The said part of Clause 26 of the G.R. dated 27-2-1989 is as follows :
"The age of superannuation for teachers in Government Colleges and Institutes of Sciences will however continue to be 58 years as there to before."
41. As regards the challenge to the above offending part of Clause 26 of the G.R. dated 27-2-1989 on the ground that it is arbitrary and is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution, it is clear from para 36 of the Judgment of this Court in the case cited supra, that the learned Counsel for the petitioner had conceded in the said case that the effect of the quashing of the offending part of Clause 26 of the G.R. dated 27-2-1989 would only be prospective in its application. Further, the operative part in para 37-A of the said judgment would show that this Court had in the said case quashed only the aforesaid offending part in para 26 of the G.R. dated 27-2-1989 and had declared that the age of retirement for the teachers in the Government Colleges would be governed by the remaining portion of the said Clause 26. As a consequence, this Court directed that Rule 161 of the B.C.S.R. would stand modified to that extent so that the age of superannuation for the Government teachers would not be 58 years but would be the age as prescribed by the remaining part of Clause 26 of the G.R. dated 27-2-1989.
42. In quashing the above offending part of Clause 26 of the G.R. dated 27-2-1989, this Court held in the said case that the University and the College teachers including the teachers in the Government Colleges formed one homogenous class and therefore, there was no reason to single out the teachers in the Government Colleges for the lower age of retirement at the age of 58 years when for all other University and College teachers the age of retirement was stipulated as 60 years as per the recommendation of the U.G.C. accepted by the Government of India. This Court pointed out that the National Policy on Education, 1986 envisaged efforts to reach the desirable objective of uniform emoluments, service conditions and grievance removal mechanism for teachers throughout the country. This Court thus held that when all other conditions of service as per the G.R. dated 27-2-1989 were the same for the Government teachers and the other University and College teachers, there was no reason for making discrimination in the matter of age of retirement of the Government teachers.
43. It is clear from the perusal of the Judgment in the aforesaid case that the effect of the said Judgment as referred to hereinbefore is prospective in the sense that it would be applicable from the date of the judgment. At any rate, since the age of retirement was laid down in Clause 26 of the aforesaid G.R. dated 27-2-1989, the remaining part of the said Clause 26 after its offending part continuing the age of retirement of 58 years for the Government teachers was struck down in the said Judgment would be applicable from the date when the said G.R. dated 27-2-1989 incorporating the said Clause 26 was issued and was implemented. Even assuming that the ratio of the said Judgment can be made applicable to the alleged laying down by the U.G.C. for the first time of the principle of uniform age of retirement at 60 years for the University and College teachers on the basis of the recommendation of "Sen Committee" the offending part relating to age of retirement of Government teachers was contained in the G.R. dated 25-10-1977 which would therefore stand struck down from the date of implementation of the said G.R. dated 25-10-1977. Even then, it cannot be held on the basis of the said Judgment that the age of superannuation of the petitioner can be treated as 60 years on the date of his transfer and absorption as Lecturer in the P.K.V. i.e. 1-6-1968. Therefore, as shown hereinbefore, the service condition as regards the age of retirement of the petitioner which is guaranteed by section 53 of the K.V. Act, 1967 or the P.K.V. Act is about his retirement at the age of 58 years as provided in the earlier Rule 161(a) of the B.C.S.R. which was applicable at that time.
44. As regards the submission that the conditions of service as a Government servant which are guaranteed are the conditions of service applicable to the Government servant as revised from time to time, the said submission is devoid of any merit. It is clear from section 53(3)(b) of the K.V. Act, 1967 as also the P.K.V. Act that on permanent absorption in the service of the Agricultural University what is guaranteed to the petitioner is that he is entitled to receive from the University such terms and conditions of service as respects remuneration, leave and pension and such rights as respects disciplinary matters or rights similar thereto, as changed circumstances may permit, are not less favourable than those to which he was entitled to immediately before he was taken over by the University. Thus, the condition of service which is guaranteed to the petitioner is the condition of service as Government servant to which he was entitled on the date of his permanent absorption and not the condition of service applicable to the Government servant from time to time, even after his permanent absorption in the service of the Agricultural University. The above submission made on behalf of the petitioner that his condition of service which is guaranteed under section 53 of the K.V. Act, 1967 or the P.K.V. Act is the condition of service applicable to the Government servant as revised from time to time cannot be accepted.
45. As demonstrated hereinbefore, it is clear that the Judgment of this Court in the above case is in relation to conditions of service incorporated in the G.R. dated 27-2-1989 issued by the State Government for implementing the revised pay scales and other measures recommended by the U.G.C. It is however, pertinent to see that the aforesaid revised pay scales and other measures are recommended by the U.G.C. and are implemented by the State Government as per its G.R. dated 27-2-1989 in respect of the University and the Government and non-Government College teachers in the faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce and Education as is clear from para 2 of the said G.R. dated 27-2-1989 itself. The said G.R. dated 27-2-1989 is not applicable to the other faculties such as medicine, engineering, agriculture etc. Therefore, as regards the University and the Government and non-Government teachers to whom the above G.R. dated 27-2-1989 is not applicable, their age of retirement would be governed by the existing rules applicable to them. The teachers in the Government Medical and Engineering Colleges would thus still be governed by the Government Rules viz. as regards age of retirement originally as per Rule 161(a) of the B.S.C.R. and with effect from 15-8-1982 as per Rule 10(1) of the Pension Rules which lays down 58 years as the age of retirement for Government servants except Class-IV.
46. It cannot therefore, be said that in view of the above Judgement of this Court in the aforesaid case, the age of retirement for the members of the academic staff in the Agricultural Universities would also become 60 years by modification of the existing Rule 161(a) of the B.C.S.R. or Rule 10(1) of the Pension Rules. Therefore, even assuming that the Government service rules as revised from time to time can be made applicable to the academic staff in the Agricultural Universities to whom there is a guarantee about their conditions of service when they were in the Government service, it cannot be said that their age of retirement is 60 years, in view of the Judgment of this Court cited supra.
47. The other limb of the submission on behalf of the petitioner based upon the guarantee of the conditions of service as a Government servant as revised from time to time is that there was no option given under the K.V. Act, 1967 or the P.K.V. Act to the teachers in the Government service to go back to their Government service before their absorption in the service of the Agricultural Universities and therefore, it should be held that they should be governed by the conditions of service in the Government as revised from time to time. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & another v. K.T. Shastri , in support of the proposition that if the petitioner is absorbed permanently in another service without giving an option to him, it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, the age of 58 years should not be held to be applicable to such employees. We shall consider the said case in detail when we consider the challenge of the petitioner based on Article 14 of the Constitution. However, suffice it to say that there is an option provided to all the Government servants like him who were transferred to the Agricultural Universities to revert back to the Government service before their final absorption in the service of the Agricultural Universities under section 53 of the K.V. Act, 1967 as well as the said section of the P.K.V. Act.
48. Section 53 of the K.V. Act, 1967 which is clear in this regard provides in sub-section (2) thereof that even after their transfers to the Agricultural Universities the permanent Government servants have lien over their posts in the Government service and therefore during the period of their service in the Agricultural University, if they choose to revert back to the Government service, they can do so, and their service in the University can then be counted for increments and other matters. Sub-section (3) of section 53 of the said Act clearly provides for option in three ways as laid down thereunder. If the Government servant so chooses, he is permitted to retire from Government service upon which he is entitled to retirement benefits as per Government rules. His second option is that he can be permanently absorbed in the service of the Agricultural University, and his third option is that he can be permitted to revert back to the Government service upon the same terms and conditions which were applicable to him immediately before his transfer to the Agricultural University. However, he has to exercise the above options within a period of two years from the date of his transfer by giving a notice in writing to the State Government in that regard. To the same effect is the provisions in section 53 of the P.K.V. Act. The above submission made on behalf of the petitioner that because no option is given to him to revert back to the Government service it should be held that the conditions of service as a Government servant as amended from time to time are applicable to him after his transfer to the Agricultural University, therefore deserves to be rejected.
49. The third and the last contention which is urged before us on behalf of the petitioner is that the service rule in the P.K.V. relating to the age of retirement which is made applicable to the petitioner by the said University is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it prescribes the age of retirement contrary to the National Policy which has prescribed the age of 60 years as the age of retirement for the University and the College teachers. It may be seen that initially after his absorption in the P.K.V. Services, the Punjabrao Agricultural University (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Service Rules, 1971 framed as Statute No. 91 under section 36 of the P.K.V. Act regulated the conditions of service of the academic staff of the said University including the petitioner as is clear from Rule 1.2 of the said Service Rules 1971 read with section 9 of the P.K.V. Act. As regards the age of retirement, Rule 10.1 contained in Chapter X of the said Service Rules, 1971 prescribes the age of 58 years as the age of retirement for the employees like the petitioner. However, after the present consolidated M.A.U. Act, 1983 was enacted, common statutes were framed for all the four Agricultural Universities in the State known as Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) Statutes, 1990 which came into force with effect from 12-7-1990. Statute No. 138 contained therein now regulates the conditions of service of the employees of four Agricultural Universities including the petitioner. It is this Statute No. 138 which contains the existing rules relating to the age of retirement of the petitioner.
50. Since the validity of the Statute No. 138 is impugned in this petition, the same is reproduced for ready reference.
Statute 138 : Pay, Allowances, Pension, Leave and General conditions of services of the employees of the University, affiliated Colleges and recognised institutions other than those Recognised for Research and Specialised Higher Learning - (1) In accordance with the provisions of section 28 and Clauses (c) and (g) of section 37 of the Act and the provisions made elsewhere in the Act and the Statutes in this behalf the provisions of the following Maharashtra Civil Service Rules (as amended and added from time to time) applicable to the State Government Employees shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to the employees of the University, affiliated Colleges and recognised institutions other than those Recognised for Research and specialised higher learning.
(i) The Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981; and
(ii) The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981; and
(iii) The Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payments during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981 and;
(iv) The Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981; and
(v) The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982; and
(vi) The Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1984; and
(vii) The Maharashtra (Discipline and Conduct) Appeal Rules, 1984; and
(viii) The Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.
(2) The employees of affiliated Colleges and recognised institutions who are in service prior to the date of passing of this statute shall be governed by such terms and conditions of service contract, if any, agreed to between the employees and the institution in respect of age of superannuation which will not exceed 60 years in any case.
(3) The Executive Council will determine from time to time the competent authorities for execution of the rules mentioned in Clause (1) above.
51. Perusal of Clause (1) of Statute 138 shows that the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules enumerated therein applicable to the Government servants are made applicable mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Agricultural Universities. As regards the age of retirement, it is the Pension Rules which regulate it. Rule 10(1) of the Pension Rules lays down as 58 years the age of retirement for the Government servants except Class - IV servants for whom the age of retirement is 60 years. It is thus the aforesaid Rule 10(1) of the Pension Rules which, in view of the Clause (1) of Statute No. 138, stipulates the age of retirement of 58 years for the members of the academic staff like the petitioner in the Agricultural Universities.
52. Turning to the challenge to the aforesaid rule of retirement at the age of 58 years applicable to the academic staff of the Agricultural University on the ground that it is arbitrary, discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, it may be seen that the law on Article 14 is by now well settled. The classic case on Article 14 is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.B. Tendolkar . We may also usefully refer to its judgment (In reference-The Special Courts Bill)5 . Article 14 forbids hostile discrimination but not reasonable classification. By the process of classification it is open to the State to determine who should be regarded as a class for the purposes of its particular legislation and in relation to the law enacted on a particular subject. Persons, things, and transactions may be grouped in one class upon itelligible differentia or test which would distinguish them from others who are left out from the said class. The said intelligible differentia must have a rational connection with the persons or things which are grouped together. In other words, it must have a rational nexus with the object of the legislation which is sought to be achieved by making such classification.
53. In the matters relating to conditions of service, the Supreme Court has considered in the case of Air India v. Nargis Meerza , what factors should be taken into consideration in making rational classification. It has held that in order to judge that separate category has been carved out of a class of service, the following circumstances should generally be examined :
(a) the nature, the mode and the manner of recruitment of a particular category from the very start,
(b) the classifications of the particular category,
(c) the terms and conditions of service of the members of the category,
(d) the nature and character of the posts and promotional avenues.
(e) the special attributes that the particular category possess which are not to be found in other classes, and the like.
54. In the light of the above judgments of the Supreme Court what is sought to be urged before us is that the University and the College teachers, whether Government or non Government, form one homogenous class of teachers at University or higher education level. Heavy reliance is placed in support of the above proposition upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Association of Maharashtra Education Service Class-II Officers v. State of Maharashtra, 1990 Mah.L.J. 161 cited supra. On the basis of the said judgment it is also urged that the National Policy on Education, 1986 also envisaged uniform conditions of service for the University and the College teachers all over the country and therefore, the age of retirement for all the University and the College teachers including the teachers in the Government Colleges should be 60 years as there is no good reason to discriminate and to single out the Government teachers for fixing the lower age of retirement at 58 years for them.
55. In appreciating the above submission made on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to see that as regards the Judgement of this Court in the case cited supra, we have already shown that what was challenged in the said case was part of Clause 26 of the G.R. dated 27-2-1989 by which instead of 60 years which was the age fixed for the University and the College teachers, the age of superannuation for the teachers in the Government Colleges and the Institutes of Science was continued to be 58 years there to before. We have also pointed out hereinbefore that the said G.R. dated 27-2-1989 was issued by the State Government for implementing the recommendations of the U.G.C. in respect of the faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce and Education only. We have thus shown that even if, the aforesaid offending part of Clause 26 of the G.R. dated 27-2-1989 was struck down in the said case, the ratio of the said decision could not be directly applicable in the case of other faculties viz. such as Medicine, Engineering, Agriculture etc. to which the said G.R. was not applicable.
56. In fact, as regards the agricultural Universities and Colleges affiliated to them since it is the I.C.A.R. which is the Apex Body and not the U.G.C., after acceptance by the I.C.A.R., the U.G.C. Pay Scales recommended for the University and College teachers in the faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce and Education were made applicable to the academic staff of the Agricultural Universities by separate G.R. dated 17-11-1978 issued by the State Government, which pay scales regarding them were revised as per the subsequent G.R. dated 17-3-1989 after the U.G.C. had recommended revision of the Pay Scales of the University and the College teachers in the above faculties which recommendations were implemented by the State Government as per its G.R. dated 27-2-1989. We have already shown that as per its letter dated 13-12-1978, the State Government had clarified its G.R. dated 17-11-1978 and had directed that the age of superannuation of the teachers in agricultural Universities should be that which had already been specified in Statutes/Service/ Rules of the respective Agricultural Universities or as per the rules framed by the Government under the B.C.S.R. followed by the Agricultural Universities in the absence of the Statutes/Service Rules. As regards the subsequent G.R. dated 17-3-1989, it is clearly laid down in Clause 10 thereof that the age of superannuation for members of the academic staff of the Agricultural Universities should continue to be 58 years as there to before.
57. It is then material to see that initially as per its resolution dated 11-12-1978, the Executive Council did not accept the condition about fixation of the age of retirement of the employees of the P.K.V. as 60 years for giving them the revised pay scales as per the aforesaid G.R. dated 17-11-1978. However, later on when the question of framing common statutes for all the four Agricultural Universities arose after the present consolidating M.A.U. Act, 1983 came into force, it was of the view as is clear from its resolution dated 23-4-1988, that the age of retirement for the employees of the P.K.V. should be 60 years. The Co-ordinating Committee of the Vice-Chancellors of the four Universities had also made a similar recommendation to the State Government in its meeting dated 29-1-1990. However, as already stated hereinbefore, the State Government did not accept the above recommendations while framing common Statutes as per its G.R. dated 12-7-1990 and on the contrary, as per its Statute No. 138 continued the age of 58 years as age of retirement for the academic staff of the Agricultural Universities by making them applicable Rule 10(1) of the Pension Rules applicable to the Government servants.
58. Considering now the question whether a separate category is carved out of a class of service in the light of the factors reproduced hereinbefore from the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Air India v. Nargis Meerza , cited supra, it is necessary to see that even before the establishment of the Agricultural Universities and before transferring the administration of the Government Colleges to them for the first time under the K.V. Act, 1967 by making them constituent Colleges of the Agricultural University, the academic staff in the Agricultural Colleges of the State Government was borne on a separate service viz. Maharashtra Agricultural Service-Class-II and Class-I whereas for the academic staff of the Government Colleges in the faculties of Arts, Commerce, Science and Education there was common Maharashtra Education Service Class-II and Class-I. It is however true that the general conditions of service of all the Government servants was regulated by the common rules framed by the Government viz. the B.C.S.R. at that time.
59. It is then pertinent to see that because of the special requirements of education in agricultural, it was decided by the State Government to establish a separate Agricultural University to cater to the special needs of the rural people, to provide better facilities for education in agriculture and to develop agricultural sciences and the matters allied therewith. The following paragraphs from the objects and reasons of the K.V. Act, 1967 bears out why a separate Agricultural University was established by the State Government.
"The main objectives and functions of the University are to lay the foundation of a strong and functional University by creating a Central Organisation at its head quarters and with the constituent Colleges in other parts of the State, for imparting education in agriculture, allied sciences and humanities; furthering the advancement of research in agriculture and allied sciences; providing integrated agricultural research, education and extension education activities at all levels for maximum effectiveness and at a minimum cost, in short to bring about closer relationship between teaching, research and extension of agriculture for creating conditions for improving economic and social conditions of the rural people."
60. With the above objectives, although initially one common Agricultural University was established under the K.V. Act, 1967, later on, under the separate Agricultural Universities Acts, such as the P.K.V. Act, Marathwada Act, etc., four Agricultural Universities were established. The State Government thereafter however thought it fit to have a common enactment for all the four Agricultural Universities, because of which it enacted the present consolidating Act, viz. M.A.U. Act, 1983.
61. It is thus clear that after the enactment of the M.A.U. Act, 1983, the conditions of service of the academic staff of the State Government which was transferred to and was absorbed in the Agricultural University was regulated by the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Statutes or regulations framed thereunder i.e. Statute No. 138 framed by virtue of powers under section 28 read with section 37 of the aforesaid M.A.U. Act, 1983. Even, under the Government, although the general conditions of service of all the Government servants were then regulated by common rules viz., the B.C.S.R., the academic staff in the Department of agriculture was prior to their transfer to and absorption in the Agricultural University borne on a separate service viz. Maharashtra Agricultural Service Class-II and Class-I, and not upon the common Maharashtra Education Service Class-II and Class-I of the Government upon which the teaching staff in the faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce and Education was borne.
62. There is also difference in the nature of duties and functions discharged by the members of the academic staff of the Agricultural Universities and the teaching staff of the non-Agricultural Universities and the Colleges affiliated to them in the faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce and Education as brought out by us in paras 29 to 31 of this Judgment. The teaching staff in the above referred non-Agricultural Universities and their affiliated Colleges is mainly required to perform teaching work i.e. to impart instructions to the students, and to undertake research work, but the academic staff in the Agriculture University has to undertake besides the teaching and research work, the field duties i.e. the Extension Education Programme which brings them in direct contract with the farmers whom they are required to educate about the new methods of agriculture and in solving those problems relating to agriculture they are required to assist.
63. As we have narrated hereinbefore, it is pertinent to see that prior to establishment of the Agricultural University there were separate set of rules regulating the general conditions of service of the teachers in the Nagpur University, the non-Government Colleges affiliated to it and the Government Colleges affiliated to it, viz. the Nagpur University teachers' service and conditions of Employment Ordinance, 1972 i.e. Ordinance No. 122 for the teachers' of the University; the College Code Ordinance No. 24, for the teachers of the non-Government affiliated Colleges, and the B.C.S.R. for the teachers of the Government affiliated Colleges. After the Agricultural Universities were established, the general conditions of service of the academic staff of the Agricultural University, its constituent Colleges i.e. the erstwhile Government Colleges of Agriculture and the private Colleges affiliated to it were regulated by the Agricultural University Acts viz. first by K.V. Act, 1967, then by the P.K.V. Act and presently by the MAU Act, 1983 and the statutes framed thereunder. In particular, the conditions of service of the academic staff of the P.K.V. were first governed by the Service Rules, 1971 (Statute No. 91) framed under section 36 of the P.K.V. Act and at present after the enactment of the M.A.U. Act, 1983, by the common statute No. 138 framed under section 37 of the said Act. However, the general conditions of the teaching staff of the non-Agricultural University (i.e. Nagpur University) and the non-Government and Government Colleges affiliated to them continued to be governed by the above ordinances and the State Government Rules respectively.
64. What is important to be seen is that for the University teachers and the non-Government affiliated Colleges as shown hereinbefore, the age of retirement laid down in the Ordinance No. 122 and the College Code Ordinance No. 24 was 60 years whereas for the teachers in the Government Colleges affiliated to the Nagpur University their age of retirement was regulated by the Government rules i.e. initially Rule 161(a) of the B.C.S.R. and thereafter by Rule 10(1) of the Pension Rules. What we emphasise is that the University teachers, the teachers in the non- Government affiliated Colleges and the teachers in the Government affiliated Colleges from the very beginning formed separate Classes regulated by the separate rules relating to their conditions of service and even as regards their recruitment as we have shown hereinbefore, the recruitment procedure was also different since so far as the University teachers were concerned their recruitment was regulated by section 57 of the Nagpur University Act, 1974 and as regards the Government Colleges their recruitment was through the M.P.S.C. As regards the non-Government affiliated Colleges although the recruitment of teachers therein was initially through a Committee constituted under the College Code Ordinance No. 24, however, after the recommendations of the U.G.C. which were accepted by the State Government as per its G.R. dated 25-10-1977, the Nagpur University issued Statute No. 8 of 1979 to adopt the procedure of recruitment given in the recommendations of the U.G.C. incorporated in the G.R. dated 25-10-1977. It is thus clear that even in the non-Agricultural Universities, the teachers in the Government Colleges are treated as a separate Class, even after the recommendations of the U.G.C. referred to above.
65. After thus considering the relevant factors referred to in the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Air India v. Nargis Meerza , cited supra it is clear that the academic staff of the Agricultural Universities, formed a separate Class regulated by separate rules relating to the conditions of service framed under the Agricultural University Act and the statutes or the rules framed thereunder. This class was based upon the intelligible differentia having rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the establishment of the separate Agricultural University under the Agricultural Universities Act. Even otherwise as shown above, the teachers in the Government Colleges affiliated to the Nagpur University always formed a separate Class for the purposes of their recruitment and conditions of service. It could not thus be said that the continuance of age of retirement of 58 years for the members of the academic staff of the Agricultural University as per the Government Rules was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
66. We are fully supported in our aforesaid view by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T.P George and others v. State of Kerala and other , relied upon on behalf of the respondent No. 1 University (P.K.V.). It is held by the Supreme Court in this case that although as per the scheme of the U.G.C. the age of retirement should be fixed at 60 years, it is not a scheme which is statutorily binding either on the State Government or the different Universities functioning under the relevant statutes in the State of Kerala. The Supreme Court has further held in the said case that even though the State Government may accept the pay revision made by the U.G.C., it does not mean that it has accepted all the clauses of the scheme introduced by the U.G.C. It has also held that so far as the conditions of service are concerned, the power to lay down the conditions of service of the Government servants vest in the State Government and, as regards others, in the Universities under the University Acts.
67. The tenor of the Judgment is that the scheme of the U.G.C. is only recommendatory in nature and therefore, only because it is provided in the said scheme that the age of retirement should be 60 years, the employees concerned cannot ipso-facto get the benefit of the said age of retirement unless the State Government accepts and revises it for its employees and the Universities for other under the Universities Acts. It is pointed out in para 4 of its Judgment that as per the circular of the Government of India dated 17-6-1987, the adoption of the scheme of the U.G.C. for revision of pay-scales of the University and the College teachers was voluntary and that if the scheme as envisaged by the U.G.C. was not accepted fully its only result would be that the State Government would not be entitled to get the benefit of reimbursement made by it to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure involved in giving effect to the revision of pay scales as recommended by its scheme.
68. As regards the University teachers it is pointed out in the Judgment cited supra that the teachers in the University are governed in respect of their conditions of service and the age of retirement by the separate statutes made by the Universities concerned and therefore, it is those statutes which would govern the conditions of service. On the other hand so far as the private Colleges or affiliated Colleges are concerned, it is pointed out in the said Judgment that their conditions of service are governed by regulations or rules framed by the Government (separate set of statutes). It is thus held by the Supreme Court in the said case that the two classes of University teachers and teachers in Private Colleges cannot be regarded as similar for purpose of conditions of service so as to bring the case under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court thus negated the challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution although in the operative part of its Judgment it has expressed that according to it, the age of retirement of 55 years in the case of the teachers in the affiliated Colleges under the Kerala University was too low. The Supreme Court has however, made it clear that it is not for the Court to prescribe the correct age of retirement, but it is a policy function requiring considerable expertise which can properly be done by the State Government or the State legislature or the University concerned. It is thus clear that as held by us above even the Supreme Court has recognised that the source of power to lay down the conditions of service of the University teachers and the private and affiliated Colleges is different and that they thus form separate Classes and therefore, there is no question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
69. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has however urged before us that since the national policy as reflected through the recommendations of the "Sen Committee" and "Mehrotra Committee" accepted by the U.G.C. and the Central Government shows that there should be uniform age of 60 years for all the University and College teachers in the country the age of retirement of the teachers in the Agricultural Universities should also be regarded as 60 years and the existing rule under Statute No. 138(1) fixing the age of 58 years as the age of retirement by adopting the Government Rule in that regard is arbitrary and discriminatory and is violative of Article 1414 of the Constitution. In support, he has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges' Association v. Union of India and others .
70. Perusal of paras 15 to 24 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra, would reveal that the Supreme Court has no doubt referred to the policy considerations in arriving at the age of retirement as 60 years for the subordinate Judicial Officers. It is however material to see that the Supreme Court has not held in the said case that if the fixation is not in accordance with the alleged national policy it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is however pertinent to see that there was a Review filed in the said case raising the general objections as well as the objections to the specific directions issued by the Supreme Court in the above Judgment. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in the proceedings in review is , All India Judges' Association v. Union of India and others.
71. It is material to see that one of the objections as regards the fixation of age of superannuation raised in the review proceedings in the above case was that Article 14 was not applicable to the question of determination of age of retirement. Perusal of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the review proceedings shows that its view that the age of retirement for the Judges of the subordinate Judiciary should be 60 years although they may be retired compulsorily at the age of 58 years as per the provisions of the service rules in that regard is principally based upon the principle that since the High Court has control over the subordinate Judiciary under Articles 234 and 236 of the Constitution and since there is a policy to have All India Judicial service, the Supreme Court should have a say in the matter of determination of conditions of service of the subordinate Judiciary and it is in that view of the matter that the question of age of retirement is considered by the Supreme Court and not on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Moreover the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between the service conditions of the Judges and the members of the other services and after taking into consideration the factors which are relevant for fixation of age of retirement of the members of the subordinate Judiciary, it has fixed their age of retirement. The ratio of the said decision is thus of no assistance to the petitioner in the instant case.
72. As regards the question of determination of age of superannuation or revision of the same, we have valuable guidance from the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Nagraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh , in which the deduction of age of retirement of Government servants from 58 to 55 years was challenged as arbitrary and irrational. In para 7 of the said Judgment, the Supreme Court has considered various factors which should be taken into consideration in determining the age of retirement. After emphasising that public interest demands that there should be an age of retirement in public services, the Supreme Court has observed that a common scheme of general application governing superannuation has therefore to be evolved in the light of experience regarding performance levels of employees, the need to provide employment opportunities to the younger sections of society and the need to open up promotional avenues to the employees at the lower levels early in their career.
73. On the question of policy decision to be taken by the State in determining the age of superannuation for its employees and the power of the courts to interfere with such policy decision, the following observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid para 7 of its Judgment cited supra are worthy of notice: "Inevitably, the public administrator has to counter balance conflicting claims while determining the age of superannuation. On the one hand, public services cannot be deprived of the benefit of the mature experience of senior employees; on the other hand, a sense of frustration and stagnation cannot be allowed to generate in the minds of the Junior members of the services and the younger sections of the society. The balancing of these conflicting claims of the different segments of society involves minute questions of policy which must, as far as possible, be left to the Judgment of the executive and the legislature. These claims involve considerations of varying vigour and applicability. Often, the Court has no satisfactory and effective means to decide which alternative, out of the many competing ones, is the best in the circumstances of a given case. We do not suggest that every question of policy is outside the scope of judicial review or that, necessarily, there are no manageable standards for reviewing any and every question of policy. Were it so, this Court would have declined to entertain pricing disputes covering as wide a range as case to mustard-oil. If the age of retirement is fixed at an unreasonably low level so as to make it arbitrary and irrational, the Court's interference would be called for, though not for fixing the age of retirement but for mandating a closer consideration of the matter. "Where an Act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore, violative of Article 14: E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu ." But while resolving the validity of policy issues like the age of retirement, it is not proper to put the conflicting claims in a sensitive judicial scale and decide the issue by finding out which way the balance tilts. That is an exercise which the administrator and the legislature have to undertake. As stated in "The Supreme Court and the Judicial Function "Edited by Philips B. Kurland, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. page 13." Judicial self-restraint is itself one of the factors to be added to the balancing process, carrying more or less weight as the circumstances seem to require."
74. It is thus clear from the above judgment that the determination of the age of retirement is a policy decision which has to be left to the executive or the legislature and unless the age of retirement is fixed at an unreasonably low level so as to make it arbitrary and irrational and unless the policy of the State in this regard is otherwise bereft of any policy or is otherwise violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, there is no scope for judicial review of its policy decision in this regard. A similar view is taken in subsequent Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T.P. George & others etc. v. State of Kerala and others, (cited supra) in which as already referred to, it is observed that it is not for the Court to prescribe the correct age of retirement, but it is a policy function requiring considerable expertise which can properly be done by the State Government or the State Legislature or the University concerned.
75. It is then observed in para 28 of the said Judgment that there are precedents in our country itself for fixing the age of retirement either at 55 or at 58 years and that either one or the other is regarded generally as acceptable depending upon the employment policy of the Government of the day. It is also observed in the said para 28 of the Judgment that it is not possible to lay down an inflexible rule that 58 years is a reasonable age for retirement and 55 not. As regards the question of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, it is held by the Supreme Court that, if the policy adopted for the time being by the Government or the legislature is shown to violate recognized norms of employment planning, it would be possible to say that the policy is irrational since in that event, it would not bear reasonable nexus with the object which it seeks to achieve. On the facts in the said case, the Supreme Court has held that the reduction of retirement age from 58 to 55 years was not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because the reports of the various Commissions referred to by it showed that the creation of new avenues of employment for the youth was an integral part of any policy governing the fixation of age of retirement for giving effect to which the age of retirement was reduced from 58 to 55 years by the State Government in that case.
76. At this stage, we shall consider the Judgments upon which reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner. In support of his proposition that we can lay down the age of superannuation as 60 years, which according to him is the uniform age of retirement for the University and the College teachers, to which proposition the learned counsel for the respondent University has taken exception, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following Judgments of the Supreme Court:
i) G.M. Talang v. Shaws Wallace and Co. .
ii) Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. v. The Workmen,
iii) The Workmen of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation v. M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., .
77. It is material to see that the above cases are in relation to the fixation of age of retirement of industrial employees in industrial adjudication. It is well settled that the scope of industrial adjudication is entirely different from the scope of adjudication in an ordinary and normal civil proceeding in a Court of law. The Industrial adjudicator has power to determine the norms for settlement of the industrial disputes relating to industrial matters and the conditions of service of the industrial employees. They have, thus powers to determine or vary the age of superannuation of industrial employees. As far back as in 1949, the Federal Court in the case of Western Automobile Association v. Industrial Tribunal, A.I.R. 1949 L.L.J. 245, has held that the industrial adjudication does not in its view mean an adjudication according to the strict law of master and servant and the award of the Tribunal can contain provision for settlement of dispute which no Court could order if it was bound by ordinary law, but the Tribunal was not fettered in any way by these limitations. It quoted with approval in this regard, the following principle of Industrial arbitration in America stated by Ludwig Teller in his book on "Labour disputes and Collective bargaining" Volume-I at page 536 : "Industrial Arbitration may involve the extension of an existing agreement or the making of a new one, or in general the creation of a new obligation or modification of old ones, while commercial arbitration generally concerns itself with interpretation of existing obligations and disputes relating to existing agreements."
78. The above power of the Industrial Tribunal is recognised by the Supreme Court itself in the case of Tejendrasingh v. M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. . In the aforesaid case, the challenge before the Supreme Court was as to discirumination in the age of superannuation of the Officers of the respondent Corporation called the Management staff and the age of retirement of the clerical staff of the Refinery Division of the said Corporation. For the former, the age of retirement was 58 years, and for the latter the age of retirement was 60 years as fixed in industrial adjudication. The challenge on behalf of the petitioner that the disparity between the two groups of employees in the matter of their age of retirement was discriminatory was rejected by the Supreme Court which held that the clerical staff and the Officers of the Management staff belonged to separate Classes as in its view the distinction in the treatment on the point in issue between workmen and officers was clearly discernible in judicial thinking as also expert opinion. It thus held that there was no question of application of Art. 14 of the Constitution in such matters.
79. As regards the difference in the scope of adjudication upon industrial disputes by the Industrial Tribunals and the adjudication by it upon a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court observed in para 5 of its Judgment cited supra that the claim of the clerical staff arose in an industrial dispute where the scope of adjudication was wide and broad based and the Tribunal had expansive jurisdiction to exercise when a reference was made to it of an industrial dispute. It then held that in an appeal against the Award in the industrial adjudication, the Supreme Court was exercising the same jurisdiction which the Industrial Tribunal had. However, it made it clear that it would not be appropriate for it to exercise that jurisdiction in dealing with an application under Article 32 of the Constitution. The above Judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon on behalf of the petitioner which are rendered in industrial adjudication of industrial disputes are thus of no assistance to the petitioner for determining the age of retirement of the academic staff of the P.K.V. at 60 years.
80. Apart from the Judgment in industrial adjudication, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & anr. v. K.T. Shastri which arose out of the proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The facts in the said case were that a service which was originally common was trifurcated without giving options to the employees concerned. However, even after trifurcation the conditions of service were similar but in respect of one of the three units of service, the age of retirement was enhanced to 60 years. It is in the above facts and circumstances that the age of retirement of the employees belonging to other two units where it continued as 58 years was challenged on the ground that it was arbitrary, discriminatory and was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the above facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court held that when previously there was a common service where, even after its trifurcation into three units, the conditions of service were the same, and when no options were given to the employees, the change in the conditions of service in one of the three units for the betterment of the employees therein would be arbitrary, discriminatory and, therefore, there would be need to have uniform age of retirement as 60 years for the employees of all the three units.
81. As regards the question of option, we have already pointed out that there was an option given in section 53 of K.V. Act, 1967 as well as under section 53 of the P.K.V. Act to the Government servants to revert back to their own service who were transferred to the Agricultural University. Moreover, even after their transfer to and absorption in the service of the Agricultural University, it was guaranteed under the aforesaid section 53 of the K.V. Act, 1967 as also the P.K.V. Act, that their conditions of service would not be varied to their disadvantage. The ratio of the Judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra is not thus attracted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
82. To conclude, the whole attempt of the petitioner to bring this case within the ratio of the Judgment of this Court in the Association's case cited supra, to claim uniform age of 60 years for the members of the academic staff in the Agricultural Universities must fail. We can not therefore, grant relief to the petitioner that his age of retirement should be treated as 60 years.
83. In the result, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.