The Supreme Court stated that the AICTE and UGC regulations apply only to individuals who qualify as teachers and are actively teaching in classrooms.

The Supreme Court noted that the regulations from AICTE and UGC apply only to those recognized as teachers who are actively teaching in classrooms. The Court rejected the appeal from the former Director of CSI Institute of Technology regarding his retirement, pointing out that the Government of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) chose not to implement the amendment that raised the retirement age to sixty-five for their universities and colleges. The Court also stated that since CSIIT is affiliated with JNT University, its teachers cannot have a retirement age greater than that of the university’s teachers. The Division Bench, which included Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, emphasized that if the State Government has not accepted the new regulations, they cannot apply to CSIIT, which has not set the retirement age for its teachers at sixty-five.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan represented the Appellant, while AOR Abhijeet Sinha represented the Respondents. The Appellant began his career as a Lecturer at Jawaharlal Nehru Technological (JNT) University in 1985 and later became a Reader. CSI Institute of Technology (CSIIT), the second Respondent, advertised for the Director position, and the Appellant was selected for the role. At the time of his appointment, the retirement age according to AICTE and UGC regulations was sixty years. These regulations were updated in 2010, raising the retirement age for teachers in technical institutions to sixty-five.

The appellant, while serving as Director at CSIIT, claimed he was promoted to Professor. In 2018, he was replaced by Respondent No. 4 as Director. The lower courts rejected his request to continue working until the age of 65. Upset by this decision, the appellant took his case to the Apex Court. He argued that since the AICTE and UGC updated their regulations in 2010 to raise the retirement age to 65, he should also receive this benefit, as professional institutions must follow these rules.

On the other hand, the Respondents argued that the State of Telangana had not adopted the updated UGC regulations, so the retirement age of 65 was not applicable there or at JNT University, which is affiliated with CSIIT. They also pointed out that the appellant had not been involved in teaching but had only held an administrative role as Director. They claimed that even if the AICTE regulations applied, the benefits would not cover the appellant since the regulations specifically mention “Teacher” and “Principal.” The Bench noted that after reviewing the arguments, they did not find merit in the appellant’s claim that the changes made in 2010 automatically applied to him.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) has chosen not to implement the amendment that raises the retirement age to sixty-five for universities and colleges. The Respondent No.2 Institute is a self-financing, Minority Educational Institution managed by the Respondent No.1 Church of South India, and it does not receive funding from the Central Government. The Bench clarified that the retirement age for all institutions in the State, including JNT University and its affiliated colleges like CSIIT, is set at sixty years. Therefore, since JNT University teachers can only work until sixty, the Appellant cannot receive special treatment. The Appellant was notified of his retirement and continued to request benefits like leave encashment and gratuity. The Bench stated that this indicates the Appellant has accepted his retirement at sixty. Furthermore, the Appellant is not considered a teacher and was only involved in administrative tasks at CSIIT. He has not provided any evidence to show he qualifies as a teacher after becoming Director.

The Court also pointed out that “AICTE and UGC regulations apply only to those recognized as teachers who are actively teaching.” Given that the Appellant has already retired and Respondent No.4 is fulfilling his role as Director of Respondent No.2 Institute, the Bench dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title: P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 938
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, AOR Mandeep Kalra, Advocates Anushna Satapathy, Radhika Jalan, Yashas J, Widaphi Lyngdoh, Aditi Gupta
Respondents: AOR Abhijeet Sinha, AOR Ravinder Agarwal, AOR Amit Gaurav Singh, AOR Harish Pandey