IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 620 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5988/2008 Dated 20/02/2008 .................... APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. DR.K. SIVADASAN CHETTIAR, SREEPADMAM, VADAKKEDATHUKAVU P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. (READER, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, D.B.COLLEGE, SASTHAMKOTTA P.O.,KOLLAM). 2. N. SASIDHARAN NAIR, "SREERAGAM", MEMANA, OACHIRA P.O.,ALAPPUZHA DIST. (LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS (SELECTION GRADE), D.B.COLLEGE, SASTHAMKOTTA P.O., KOLLAM). 3. DR.V.MOHANAN, "LOVELY", MITHRI NAGAR-31, KOTTARAKKARA P.O. (SELECTION GRADE LECTURER, D.B.COLLEGE, SASTHAMKOTTA P.O., KOLLAM). 4. DR. N.SEETHA, THOYITHALA VEEDU, PALLICKAL P.O.,KILIMANOOR-695604 (SELECTION GRADE LECTURER, D.B.COLLEGE, SASTHAMKOTTA P.O., KOLLAM). 5. DR.K.K. MALATHI DEVI, KOTTUIPPALLIL ILLAM, PRAYAR P.O., OACHIRA (SELECTION GRADE LECTURER, D.B.COLLEGE, SASTHAMKOTTA P.O., KOLLAM). 6. E.V. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ELEMPLASSERI ILLAM, KALLOORKAD P.O.,MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (LECTURER SELECTION GRADE IN MATHEMATICS, S.S.V. COLLEGE, VALAYAMCHIRANGARA P.O PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW WA 620/2008 RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EDUCATION SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, 128 'C' WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. 4. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC FOR UGC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NO.620 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated 14th March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the appellants. The grievance raised by them in the writ petition was concerning the age of retirement of Teachers of the Colleges in Kerala. As per the provisions of the Kerala University First Statute, 1976, they have to retire at the age of 55. As per the U.G.C norms, the age of retirement of Teachers was 60 initially and now it is enhanced to 62. But, the Statutes of the Kerala University even now remain unamended, providing the retirement age as 55. Feeling aggrieved by the said position, the writ petition was filed. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, relying on Ext.P1 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.826/2007. In the said decision, the Division Bench held that the court cannot compel the Government or the University to amend the Statutes. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the decision in Ext.P1 requires reconsideration. It does not lay down the correct legal position. 2. The framing of a statute is a legislative function. No court can WA 620/2008 2 compel the delegate of the legislature to frame a statute or to amend a statute. This position is well settled by the decision of the Apex Court in Narinder Chand v. U.T. Him.Pra. [AIR 1971 SC 2399] In the said decision, it was held as follows: “The power to impose a tax is undoubtedly a legislative power. That power can be exercised by the legislature directly or subject to certain conditions, the legislature may delegate that power to some other authority. But the exercise of that power, whether by the legislature or by its delegate is an exercise of a legislative power. The fact that the power was delegated to the executive does not convert that power into an executive or administrative power. No court can issue a mandate to a legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly no court can direct a subordinate legislative body to enact or not to enact a law which it may be competent to enact.” The above statement of law has been consistently followed and upheld by the courts in India. We are also bound by the said legal position. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/ WA 620/2008 3