Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Dr Anuradha Sharma vs University Of Jammu on 9 April, 2026
:: 1 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 101/2025 &
TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024
Reserved on: - 12.09.2025
Pronounced on: - 09.04.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. OA/101/2025
1. Dr. Rajendra Mishra; age: 61 years S/o Sh. Madan Mohan Mishra
R/o H.No.250-A, Shastri Nagar, Jammu-180004.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Aniruddh
Sharma)
Versus
1. University of Jammu Baba Saheb Ambedkar Road Jammu Tawi-
180006 through its Registrar
2. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Through
Commissioner/Secretary to Government Higher Education
Department Jammu and Kashmir Government Civil Secretariat,
Jammu-180001
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024
3. Prof. Umesh Rai Vice Chancellor University of Jammu Baba
Saheb Ambedkar Road Jammu Tawi-180006
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Ajay Abrol, Mr. Rajesh Thapa, ld. A.A.G., Mr. Anil
Sethi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rahul Sharma (for Pvt. Resp.))
2. TA/139/2024
1. Dr. Anuradha Sharma; age: 61 years W/o Sh. Sham Lal Sharma
R/o New Shiv Temple Lane Near State Bank of India Sidhra,
Jammu
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Aniruddh
Sharma)
Versus
1. University of Jammu Baba Saheb Ambedkar Road Jammu Tawi-
180 006 through its Registrar
2. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Through
Commissioner/Secretary to Government Higher Education
Department Jammu and Kashmir Government Civil Secretariat,
Jammu
...Respondents
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024
(Advocate:- Mr. Ajay Abrol, Mr. Rajesh Thapa, ld. A.A.G., Mr. Anil
Sethi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rahul Sharma (for Pvt. Resp.))
3. TA/241/2024
1. Dr. Anuradha Sharma; age: 61 years W/o Sh. Sham Lal Sharma
R/o New Shiv Temple Lane Near State Bank of India Sidhra,
Jammu
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Aniruddh
Sharma)
Versus
1. Prof. Umesh Rai Vice Chancellor University of Jammu Baba
Saheb Ambedkar Road Jammu Tawi-180 006
2. Prof. Rahul Gupta Registrar University of Jammu Baba Saheb
Ambedkar Road Jammu Tawi-180 009
...Respondent
(Advocate:- Mr. Ajay Abrol, Mr. Rajesh Thapa, ld. A.A.G., Mr. Anil
Sethi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rahul Sharma (for Pvt. Resp.))
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and SWP No.799/2024 & CCP(S) no. 142/2024 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.139/2024 & 241/2024 respectively by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
1. OA/101/2025
a) Allow the instant application of the applicant along with costs;
b) Quash and set aside the Government Order No:183- JK(HE) of 2023 dated 03.07.2023 to the extent the Committee has been constituted by the Government to review the performance of the University Professors for enhancement in the age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years;
c) Direct the Respondents to allow the applicant to continue in service till he attains the age of 65 years;
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 5 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024
Or in the alternative:
d) Respondent No.3 may be restrained from participating in the
proceedings of the Committee constituted vide Government Order No:183-JK(HE) of 2023 dated 03.07.2023 as and when the case of the applicant is considered by the Committee and any adverse decision of the Committee be not implemented vis- a-vis the applicant till such time the present O.A. is decided by this Hon'ble Tribunal;
e) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.
2. TA/139/2024
a) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing Government Order No:183-JK(HE) of 2023 dated 03.07.2023 to the extent the enhancement in the age of superannuation of University Professors from 62 to 65 years, has been ordered subject to evaluation of performance by a Committee appointed by the Government;
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024
b) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the Communication No:Adm/TW/2024/9274-75 dated 13.03.2024 issued by the Respondent No.1 whereby the petitioner has been conveyed that her request seeking review of her age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years, has not been acceded to by the Committee constituted by the Higher Education Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir;
c) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till she attains the age of 65 years;
d) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents along with cost.
3. TA 241/2024
a) initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful defiance and non-compliance of the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP(C) No:799 of HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 2024 titled Dr. Anuradha Sharma vs. University of Jammu & Another;
b) direct the respondents to appear in person to show cause as to why they be not punished for committing the contempt of this Hon'ble Court by deliberately and intentionally not implementing the order aforesaid and they be punished accordingly;
c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
4. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -
a) The present matters arise out of a common controversy relating to the enhancement of age of superannuation of University Professors from 62 years to 65 years pursuant to Government Order No.183-JK(HE) of 2023 dated 03.07.2023, whereby the Government approved such enhancement subject to evaluation of performance by a Committee constituted under the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, UT of Jammu and Kashmir.
b) The applicant, Dr. Rajendra Mishra in OA 101/2025 is serving as Professor in the Business School, University of Jammu. He was initially appointed as Lecturer in the year 1992 and thereafter promoted from time to time under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) framed under the UGC Regulations, 2010. Eventually, he was granted promotion to the post of Professor, first w.e.f. 04.11.2015 and later with retrospective effect from 04.08.2009, being the date of eligibility determined by the Selection Committee.
c) The applicant contends that the UGC Regulations prescribe uniform enhancement of the retirement age of Professors from 62 to 65 years and that once the Government accepted the enhancement, it could not subject individual cases to performance review by a Committee lacking subject-specific experts. He further asserts that such evaluation amounts to a second selection process contrary to statutory provisions and academic autonomy.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024
d) The applicant was informed by the University to submit requisite credentials for consideration of extension of service beyond 62 years. He alleges mala fides on the part of the Vice- Chancellor and other authorities, particularly in view of pending litigation concerning his seniority, promotion benefits, and alleged non-implementation of earlier judicial directions. According to him, the constitution of the Review Committee and its functioning were intended to deny him the benefit of enhanced superannuation.
Background of TA No.139/2024 and TA No.241/2024
e) In the connected matters, Dr. Anuradha Sharma, Professor in the Department of Geography, University of Jammu, has also challenged the same Government Order as well as the communication dated 13.03.2024 whereby her request for continuation in service up to the age of 65 years was rejected by the Committee constituted by the Government.
f) The petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer in the Higher Education Department in 1993, later joined the University as Associate Professor in 2006, and was promoted as Professor in HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 2014 under the CAS. She contends that she has served as Head of the Department for several years and has maintained satisfactory academic and research performance. She submits that the evaluation of a Professor's performance for extension of service can only be undertaken by experts in the relevant academic discipline and not by a Committee comprising primarily administrative officers.
g) Both applicants question the legality and validity of Government Order No.183-JK(HE) of 2023, contending that:
The Government has the authority to prescribe the age of retirement but not to assess individual suitability for extension of service, which falls within the domain of the University's statutory bodies.
The constitution of a Committee headed by bureaucrats, without subject-specific experts, is arbitrary and violative of academic autonomy.
The impugned policy enables selective grant or denial of extension, thereby offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 The enhancement in retirement age, once adopted, ought to operate uniformly for all eligible Professors rather than through a case-by-case review.
h) Aggrieved by denial of continuation in service and by the conditional nature of the enhancement policy, the applicants approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of writ petitions, which upon transfer stood registered as the present Original Application and Transfer Applications before this Tribunal.
3. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have filed a detailed reply resisting the claim of the applicants and have raised preliminary as well as substantive objections.
b) At the outset, it is contended that the present Original Application and connected Transfer Applications are misconceived, premature and an abuse of the process of law, inasmuch as the applicants seek to challenge a policy decision of the Government relating to enhancement of the age HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 of superannuation of University Professors. The respondents submit that the impugned Government Order has been issued in exercise of administrative and financial powers of the Government, which is competent to prescribe service conditions, including the age of retirement, for institutions substantially funded by it.
c) It is further pleaded that enhancement of age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years is not an automatic or vested right of any Professor. The Government, while approving such enhancement, has consciously decided that the benefit would be subject to evaluation of overall performance, health condition, academic contribution, research output, integrity and institutional contribution of the concerned Professor. Such evaluation, according to the respondents, is a reasonable classification intended to maintain academic standards and ensure optimal utilization of public resources.
d) The respondents submit that the Committee constituted under Government Order No.183-JK(HE) of 2023 is a high-level body comprising senior administrative and academic HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 functionaries, including the Vice-Chancellor of the concerned University. The Committee has been entrusted with the task of examining individual cases objectively on the basis of prescribed parameters. It is asserted that the constitution of such Committee does not violate any statutory provision of the Jammu and Kashmir Universities Act, 1969 or the UGC Regulations, as the power to determine the age of superannuation ultimately rests with the Government.
e) With regard to the case of Dr. Rajendra Mishra, the respondents deny allegations of mala fides and assert that the applicant has been granted promotion benefits strictly in accordance with judicial directions and applicable rules. It is contended that disputes relating to seniority, pay fixation or administrative assignments are distinct issues and cannot be linked to the policy decision regarding enhancement of retirement age. The respondents maintain that the applicant has been afforded adequate opportunity to submit requisite information for consideration of his case, and no adverse decision has been taken arbitrarily.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024
f) Similarly, in the case of Dr. Anuradha Sharma, the respondents submit that her case for continuation in service beyond 62 years was duly considered by the competent Committee on the basis of the material placed on record. Upon evaluation of the prescribed parameters, the Committee did not find her suitable for grant of extension, and the decision was accordingly communicated to her. The respondents contend that judicial review cannot be invoked to substitute the assessment of an expert Committee unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, malafide or in violation of statutory rules, which, according to them, is not the case here.
g) It is further contended that UGC Regulations only provide enabling guidelines and their implementation in State Universities is subject to acceptance and adaptation by the State/UT Government in light of local administrative and financial considerations. The Government, therefore, retains the discretion to introduce safeguards, including performance evaluation, while granting enhancement in the age of superannuation.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024
h) The respondents also deny the allegation that the policy permits selective or discriminatory extension of service. They submit that the evaluation is based on objective criteria applicable uniformly to all eligible Professors. The impugned Government Order is stated to be a policy decision taken in public interest with the objective of balancing academic autonomy with administrative accountability and financial prudence.
i) On these grounds, the respondents pray for dismissal of the Original Application and the connected Transfer Applications, contending that the applicants have failed to establish any legal or constitutional infirmity in the impugned Government Order or in the decisions taken pursuant thereto.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. These three matters, namely O.A. No.101/2025, T.A. No.139/2024 and T.A. No.241/2024, arise out of a common controversy and are therefore being disposed of by this common judgment. The principal challenge in O.A. No.101/2025 and T.A. No.139/2024 is directed HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 against Government Order No.183-JK(HE) of 2023 dated 03.07.2023, whereby the Government approved enhancement of the age of superannuation of University Professors from 62 years to 65 years, but made the said benefit subject to review by a Committee constituted under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, with the Vice Chancellor of the concerned University, Administrative Secretary, Higher Education Department and other senior officers as members. The order also stipulated the parameters on which such review was to be undertaken, namely overall performance, health, conduct and integrity, teaching contribution, academic contribution, research contribution and contribution to the institution. The said policy was followed by the University through a consequential circular/proforma calling for data and recommendations from the academic authorities of the University.
6. Dr. Rajendra Mishra, applicant in O.A. No.101/2025, claims to be serving as Professor in the Business School, University of Jammu, having been promoted under the Career Advancement Scheme, with the date of promotion having later been reckoned from 04.08.2009. He is aggrieved that although he seeks consideration for continuation HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 in service beyond 62 years, the same has been subjected to scrutiny by the Committee constituted under Government Order dated 03.07.2023. His case is that once UGC Regulations contemplate enhancement of age of superannuation up to 65 years, the Government could not interpose a bureaucratic review committee and convert the matter into a second selection process. He has also levelled allegations of mala fides against the Vice Chancellor by relying upon disputes in separate litigations concerning his seniority, deanship, pay fixation and allied grievances.
7. The University, on the other hand, states that the communication dated 28.10.2024 was only issued for calling information so that his case could be processed in terms of the Government Order; that an inadvertent local committee once constituted had already been withdrawn; and that his claim for enhancement in age could only be placed before the Government Committee constituted for the purpose. The respondents further assert that the applicant cannot seek the benefit of enhancement in age while at the same time resisting consideration of his case by the only mechanism prescribed under the governing policy.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 18 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024
8. Dr. Anuradha Sharma, applicant in T.A. No.139/2024, is stated to have been serving as Professor in the Department of Geography, University of Jammu, having earlier served as Lecturer and then Associate Professor, and thereafter having been promoted as Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme. Her case is that she had applied for review of her age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years, but the same was not acceded to and this was conveyed to her through communication No. Adm/TW/2024/9274-75 dated 13.03.2024. She challenges both the Government Order dated 03.07.2023 and the consequential rejection communication on the ground that the Committee lacks subject experts, that the Government could not assume to itself the power to assess individual Professors of a statutory University, and that the policy permits arbitrary pick and choose.
9. T.A. No.241/2024 arises out of contempt proceedings originally filed in the Hon'ble High Court. The said matter is essentially consequential in nature and is founded upon the grievance that the action of the authorities in relation to the review process and refusal of enhancement was not in conformity with the claim projected in the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 19 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 substantive writ petition. Since the contempt jurisdiction is not an independent source of substantive relief, the fate of the said transferred contempt matter necessarily depends upon the outcome of the principal challenge.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants argued that the University of Jammu is a statutory autonomous body under the Jammu and Kashmir Universities Act, 1969, that appointment and academic evaluation of Professors fall within the domain of University authorities, and that once Professors had already been subjected to rigorous expert-based scrutiny under the UGC Regulations and Career Advancement Scheme, the Government could not create another layer of assessment through a committee dominated by bureaucratic officials. It was contended that enhancement in age from 62 to 65 years, once accepted by the Government, must operate uniformly and cannot be made dependent upon uncertain standards. It was also argued that the impugned order is arbitrary as it does not prescribe a clear benchmark, and in the case of Dr. Mishra, the participation of respondent No.3/Vice Chancellor is vitiated by mala fides in view of earlier service disputes. These pleadings are reflected HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 20 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 in detail in the file, including the applicants' reliance on their promotions under CAS, their academic profile, the seven review parameters in the Government Order, and the specific grievance against committee-based scrutiny.
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the University and the Government submitted that enhancement of age of superannuation is not a matter of right and that no Professor has a vested entitlement to continue beyond the prescribed age merely because such enhancement has been introduced as a policy concession. It was argued that fixation of age of retirement and the conditions subject to which service may continue beyond normal superannuation are matters falling squarely within policy and financial domain of the Government, particularly where the institutions are Government funded. It was further argued that the Committee is not a selection body for appointment or promotion, but only a review mechanism for considering continuance beyond the normal age of superannuation; that the Government Order itself lays down objective parameters; and that unless palpable arbitrariness, discrimination or statutory violation is demonstrated, the Tribunal ought not to interfere with such policy choices. In relation to HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 21 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 Dr. Mishra, it was specifically urged that the allegations of mala fides are borrowed from other litigations and do not by themselves invalidate the policy. The University has also pointed out that the applicant's separate controversies regarding seniority, deanship and arrears are already subject matter of independent proceedings and cannot be telescoped into the present challenge.
12. In the opinion of this Tribunal, the challenge must fail at the threshold for the simple reason that continuation in service beyond the age of normal superannuation is not a matter of vested right unless the governing rule itself grants the same automatically and unconditionally. What the Government Order dated 03.07.2023 does is not to substitute the age of superannuation simpliciter from 62 years to 65 years in absolute terms; rather, it confers a conditional benefit subject to review on stated parameters. In service jurisprudence, there is a clear distinction between normal age of retirement and a further continuation or enhancement made dependent upon fulfilment of specified conditions. A person can undoubtedly claim enforcement of an accrued statutory right, but cannot insist that a conditional concession be converted into an unconditional entitlement by judicial HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 22 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 fiat. Therefore, the foundational premise of the applicants that every Professor, merely because he or she is holding the post of Professor, must be continued till the age of 65 years, cannot be accepted.
13. The next submission that the Government was wholly incompetent to prescribe any such review mechanism is also without merit. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that Universities are statutory bodies and that academic matters ordinarily deserve a certain degree of autonomy. Equally, however, it cannot be ignored that the age of retirement and continuance in funded public institutions has undeniable administrative and financial implications. The Government, while deciding to permit enhancement from 62 to 65 years, was entitled to structure the manner in which such benefit would operate, including the requirement that the performance and suitability of a Professor for continuation beyond the ordinary age of retirement be reviewed periodically. The Government Order itself shows that what has been prescribed is a policy framework with identifiable parameters and a high-level committee for review. It is not possible to hold, merely because University authorities also have a role in appointments and academic administration, that the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 23 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 Government is denuded of all authority in the matter of prescribing age-related service conditions for publicly funded Universities. The applicants' attempt to equate the review committee with a selection committee for appointment or promotion is, therefore, misplaced. The two operate in different fields: one governs entry or advancement in service; the other governs continuance beyond normal superannuation.
14. Much emphasis was laid by the applicants on the composition of the committee and the absence of subject-specific experts from every discipline. That argument also does not persuade this Tribunal. The review contemplated by the impugned order is not a viva voce or academic selection in a specialized subject, nor is it an adjudication of inter se merit for appointment to the post of Professor. The parameters enumerated in the Government Order are broader and relate to overall performance, integrity, health, teaching contribution, academic and research output and institutional contribution. For such a review, the Government has chosen a mechanism which includes the Vice Chancellor of the concerned University along with senior Government functionaries. It cannot be said that the very presence of administrative authorities renders the process illegal. Judicial review HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 24 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 does not permit the Court or Tribunal to redesign a policy merely because another model may also have been possible or arguably preferable. Unless the composition is shown to be prohibited by statute or so irrational as to offend constitutional standards, the Court must exercise restraint.
15. The argument of arbitrariness founded upon absence of benchmark also does not carry the applicants much further. The Government Order sets out seven specific parameters to guide the review. The fact that the standards are broad does not by itself make them unenforceable or arbitrary. Administrative decisions involving evaluation of service beyond a certain age often depend upon multiple factors incapable of mathematical formulation. So long as the criteria are relevant to the object sought to be achieved, namely retention of deserving and suitable faculty members in service beyond the ordinary age of superannuation, the policy cannot be invalidated on the sole ground that no rigid numerical cut-off has been prescribed. Indeed, a rigid numerical formula may itself in a given case be attacked as over-simplistic. The scope of judicial review in such policy matters is confined to examining whether the policy is HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 25 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory or contrary to statute. This Tribunal finds none of these vices established on the present record.
16. The reliance placed by the applicants on the UGC Regulations and the Career Advancement Scheme is also insufficient to dislodge the impugned policy. The fact that promotions under CAS are based on API/PBAS and expert scrutiny does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that continuation beyond the age of superannuation must also follow automatically. A person may be perfectly eligible and suitable for promotion as Professor at one stage of service, and yet the employer may legitimately decide that continuance beyond normal retirement age should depend upon additional review of contemporary performance, institutional requirements, health and conduct. Promotion and post-superannuation continuance are conceptually different matters. One cannot be treated as conclusively governing the other. The argument that committee review amounts to a prohibited "second selection" is thus more rhetorical than legal.
17. The submission that the Government has indulged in "pick and choose" and that some Professors were granted enhancement while others were not, also remains unsupported by any cogent comparative HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 26 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 material. A bald plea that some other persons were favoured cannot suffice to invalidate a policy or the decisions taken under it. To sustain a plea of hostile discrimination, the applicants were required to place before the Tribunal particulars of similarly situated persons, the relevant review material, and the basis on which their cases were allegedly treated differently. That exercise has not been undertaken. In the absence of a proper foundation, the plea under Articles 14 and 16 remains only an assertion.
18. Insofar as O.A. No.101/2025 is concerned, the Court has carefully considered the allegations of mala fides levelled by Dr. Rajendra Mishra against the Vice Chancellor. It is true that the pleadings in the file contain detailed accusations concerning prior disputes relating to seniority, appointment as Dean, implementation of earlier judgments and non-release of arrears. It is equally true that the respondents have denied those allegations and have asserted that such controversies are subject matter of separate proceedings, including matters pending before superior Courts. The settled position is that mala fides must be pleaded with full particulars and proved by clear, cogent and unimpeachable material. Suspicion, bitterness generated by earlier HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 27 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 litigation, or a perception of hostility is not enough. The present proceedings are primarily directed against a policy order dated 03.07.2023 and its implementation. The unrelated or collateral disputes referred to by Dr. Mishra may furnish background grievance, but they cannot, without more, lead to the inference that the policy itself is vitiated or that the participation of respondent No.3 in a statutory/administrative process must be interdicted by the Tribunal. This is particularly so when the review is not by respondent No.3 alone, but by a multi-member committee constituted under Government Order. At this stage, therefore, the plea of mala fides is found to be insufficiently substantiated for grant of the relief sought.
19. The contention of Dr. Mishra that the University had once constituted another committee and thereby attempted to overreach an earlier order also does not materially advance the case. The respondents have specifically pleaded that the said committee was inadvertently constituted and was thereafter withdrawn, and that only the Dean, Academic Affairs would recommend the case in terms of the prescribed process. That stand finds mention in the reply. Once the respondents have reverted to the prescribed procedure and the present HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 28 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 dispute essentially concerns the validity of the parent Government Order, no separate surviving cause is made out on that count.
20. In the case of Dr. Anuradha Sharma, the challenge is even weaker.
Her case was actually considered under the policy and the communication dated 13.03.2024 simply informs her that the Committee did not accede to her request. Unless the policy is shown to be unconstitutional or the decision-making process is shown to be vitiated by procedural unfairness, mala fides or consideration of extraneous material, this Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the assessment of the review committee. There is no material before this Tribunal to demonstrate that the committee ignored the record placed by her or proceeded on irrelevant considerations. Mere disagreement with the outcome cannot furnish a ground for judicial interference.
21. It also deserves to be noted that the applicants have framed their case as though the Government had no option except to grant enhancement across the board once UGC norms were adopted. This submission cannot be accepted in the broad manner urged. The pleadings themselves indicate that the University had left the matter of age of superannuation to the Government and that the Government thereafter HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 29 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 chose to approve enhancement through a particular structure. Even if another Government or another University elsewhere has granted enhancement uniformly, that by itself does not render the present policy unlawful. Comparative administrative choices in other States are, at best, persuasive and not binding. A policy cannot be struck down merely because a more liberal policy exists elsewhere.
22. The Tribunal is also mindful of the caution that in matters touching academic administration, institutional governance and service conditions of higher faculty, judicial review must be carefully confined to the legality of the process and not extended to the wisdom of the policy. Courts and Tribunals do not sit as appellate authorities over executive policy unless the measure is plainly unconstitutional, ultra vires or manifestly arbitrary. The present case, in substance, invites the Tribunal to prefer one model of governance over another and to rewrite the Government Order by deleting the review mechanism altogether. That is not a permissible exercise in judicial review.
23. Learned counsel for the applicants had urged that because the impugned order affects the autonomy of the University, the Tribunal HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 30 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 should strike it down. The argument overlooks that autonomy does not imply total immunity from service-related policy prescriptions made by the funding Government. A balanced relationship between University administration and Governmental control over financial and service consequences is a matter of policy and statutory arrangement. In the absence of a clear statutory bar, the mere fact that the Government has retained a review role in continuance beyond ordinary superannuation does not by itself destroy autonomy so as to invite invalidation of the policy.
24. On an overall conspectus, therefore, this Tribunal holds: first, that the applicants do not possess an enforceable vested right to continue in service till the age of 65 years; second, that the Government was competent to prescribe a conditional enhancement in age of superannuation and to provide a review mechanism for that purpose; third, that the committee constituted under Government Order No.183-JK(HE) of 2023 dated 03.07.2023 cannot be equated with a selection body for appointment or promotion and hence the challenge on that basis is misconceived; fourth, that the policy discloses relevant parameters and is not shown to be manifestly arbitrary; fifth, that the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 31 ::OA 101/2025 & TA 139/2024 & TA 241/2024 plea of discrimination is unsupported by necessary particulars; and sixth, that the allegations of mala fides, particularly in O.A. No.101/2025, are not established to the degree required for judicial intervention.
25. Insofar as T.A. No.241/2024, arising out of contempt proceedings, is concerned, once the principal challenge to the policy and consequential action fails, no independent substantive relief survives therein. Contempt jurisdiction is only to secure compliance of an existing and enforceable order; it cannot become a vehicle for granting a substantive declaration contrary to the conclusion reached in the main proceedings. The transferred contempt matter is, accordingly, also liable to be dismissed.
26. For the foregoing reasons, O.A. No.101/2025, T.A. No.139/2024 and T.A. No.241/2024 are dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV