Allahabad High Court
Meerut College Parivar Kalyan Samiti vs State Of U.P. And Others on 16 October, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(4)AWC3257, (2001)1UPLBEC201
JUDGMENT S.R. Singh and D.R. Chaudhary, JJ. 1. Heard Sri Pramod Jain appearing for the petitioner, standing counsel representing the State. Sri Vivek Chaudhary for Vice-Chancellor and Sri Shailendra representing the respondent No. 4 Dr. V. B. Chauhan. Since we are not interfering with the impugned order, it is not necessary to issue notice to Committee of Management and the Director, Anti-Corruption Branch. C.B.I, arrayed herein as respondent Nos. 3 and 5 respectively. 2. The writ petition is directed against the office memo dated 17.6.2000 by which the service of the fourth respondent has been extended upto 30.6.2001, it is not disputed that the fourth respondent was born on 2.7.1940 and as such, he attained the age of superannuation on 2.7.2000. The services of the petitioner, however, stood extended upto 30.6.2001 under Statute 17.15 of the First Statutes of the University of Meerut. The college in question is affiliated to the said University. Statute 17.15 being relevant to the controversy is quoted hereundrr : "17.15. No extension in service beyond the age of superannuation shall be granted to any teacher after the date of commencement of these Statutes : Provided that a teacher- (i) whose date of superannuation does not fall on June 30 ; or (ii) whose date of birth is July 1 and who having been employed from before the commencement of these Statutes continues to be in service as such on the date of commencement of the Meerut University (Twenty second Amendment) First Statutes, 1985 ; shall continue in service till the end of the academic session, that is, June 30 following, and will be treated as on re-employment from the date immediately following his superannuation till June 30 following." 3. The question is whether the benefit of Statute 17.15 could be given to the Principal of an affiliated college. Section 2(18) of the State Universities Act. 1973, defines "teacher" to mean, "a person employed (for imparting instructions or guiding or conducting research in the University or in an institute or in a constituent, affiliated or associated college) and includes a Principal or a Director". By this reckoning, Principal of an affiliated college would be deemed to be a 'teacher' and, therefore, he was entitled to get the benefit of Statute 17.15 and. accordingly, to continue in service till the end of academic session, i.e., to say till 30th June following the date of his superannuation. No resolution of Committee of Management is required to be passed in this regard inasmuch as the extension in service and re-employment lakes place by operation of law and the petitioner will be treated as "re-employment from the date immediately following his superannuation till June 30, following." 4. Sri Framed Jain, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in S K. Rathi v. Prem Hari Sharma and others. JT 2000 (8) SC 267 The said decision, in our opinion, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It would appear from the facts of that case that a teacher was acting as an officiating principal and the question arose as to whether on extension of his service as a teacher, he was entitled to continue as officiating principal of the college? The management did not allow him to work as officiating principal. He filed Civil Misc Writ Petition Wo. 54640 of 1990. Dr. Prem Hari Sharma v. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, University of Agra and others. In which a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order : "Sri Pankaj Mittal has appeared for respondent No. 1 and learned counsel for Central Government for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. They may file C.A. within a month. List in the week commencing 14th February, 2000. In view of the Division Bench decision in Udai Narain Pandey v. Director of Education. 1999 (3) UPLBEC 1887, we direct that petitioner shall continue to function as principal of the institution in question till 30.9.2000. Sd. M. Katju, J. Sd. S. K. Agarwal, J.
5.1.2000,"
5. Against the interim order dated 5.1.2000. Special Leave Petition was filed by Sri S. K. Rathi which has been decided by the Supreme Court and is reported in JT 2000 (8) SC 267.
It would appear that The provisions contained tn Section 2 (18) of the State Universities Act, 1973. were not brought to the notice of their Lordships of the Supreme Court and, therefore, it was held that as a result of extension, the teacher concerned would be entitled to continue as a teacher in his substantive appointment but not as a principal. The post of a principal is a direct recruitment post and is not a post to be filled by promotion. But since a teacher in that case was given officiating appointment as principal and the Apex Court proceeded as if the post of principal was to be filled up by promotion as would appear from the observation : "It is a teacher on promotion who is appointed as a Principal and there is no decision of the Government giving extension beyond the age of 60 years to a principal". This observation was, perhaps, made because the relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. In Udai Narain Pandey v. Director of Education (Higher Education). Allahabad and others, (1999) 3 UPLBEC 1887, the question involved herein was considered by a Division Bench of this Court wherein it was held that a person appointed as principal holding the said post till the date of superannuation is entitled to re-employment in the service as per the Statute. The Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 3895 of 1999 was preferred against the judgment. Upon hearing the counsel, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to pass the following order :
"We are in agreement with the High Court that in view of the provisions of Stature 16.24 read with Section 2 (18) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, the Principal who was in office could be re-employed till 30th June following his age of superannuation. In this view of the matter, the continuation of respondent No. 5 till 30th June, 1999, is in accordance with law.
The special leave petition is dismissed."
7. It may be pointed out that Statute 16.24 applies to Universities while the provisions contained in Statute 17.15 applying to affiliated colleges. The attention of the Apex Court was perhaps not invited to the relevant Statute applicable to affiliated college. However, Statute 16.24 referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court is in pari materia with Statute 17.15.
8. Accordingly, we find no merits in this case. The writ petition is dismissed.