IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.2039 OF 2004 BETWEEN: The Chairman, SVH College of Engineering, Machilipatnam. …. Appellant AND 1. Dr. CRK Sharma S/o. Venkata Narasimha 2. The Commissioner of Technical Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh 3. The Chairman, All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi 4. A. Prabhakar Rao, SVH College of Engineering, Machilipatnam. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.2039 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant the Chairman, S.V.H. College of Engineering - respondent No.3 against the orders dated 19-11-2004 in W.P. No.27642 of 1998 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. 2. The writ petition was filed by one Dr.C.R.K. Sharma, a Professor in the S.V.H. College of Engineering (for short ‘the College’), respondent No.1 herein. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. 4. The Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus to call for the records and set aside the proceedings dated 08-08-1998 of respondent No.2, Secretary of the College, as being arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to continue him in service of the college upto the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, without any break and with all consequential benefits. 5. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that he worked as a Professor of Civil Engineering in the College and by the proceedings dated 08-08-1998 of respondent No.2, he was sought to be retired from service with effect from 30-06-1998 on attaining the age of 58 years. It is his further case that the age of superannuation for Teachers in technical institutions shall be 60 years and that on examination of this aspect, the competent authority i.e. respondent No.1 – Commissioner of Technical Education had issued a circular in Memo No.E4/17983/98, dated 27-06-1998, wherein it was categorically stated that as per the All India Council for Technical Education (for short ‘AICTE’) and University Rules, an employee of the University, except administrative and ministerial employees, shall be retired on attaining the age of 60 years and that the said circular was communicated to all the Secretaries and Correspondents of all private unaided engineering colleges and that without following the said circular, the college has given the impugned proceedings to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner contended before the learned single Judge that the College was approved by the AICTE, which is a statutory authority under All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) for granting approval in case of technical institutions. It was further contended that the Government of India in proceedings F.No.6-1/88-T5 dated 28-2-1989 decided to implement revised pay scales of the engineering colleges and the other technical institutions. As per Clause 21 of the appendix to the said proceedings, the age of superannuation was fixed at 60 years with a provision for re- employment upto 65 years. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be continued in service till he attains the age of 60 years i.e. upto 30-06- 2000. 7. The College filed counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit stating that the College is an unaided college and it is not receiving any aid either from the State Government or from the Central Government and the instructions issued by the AICTE are only recommendatory in nature and they are not applicable to the Teachers working under it. 8. The learned single Judge, on extensive consideration of the submissions of both sides and also the Circular dated 27-6-1998, G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 18-7-1989 and G.O.Ms.No.208 dated 29-6-1999, had observed that the Teachers working in the private unaided Engineering and Technical Colleges are also entitled to be treated on par with the University Teachers. Learned single Judge further observed that the only objection of the College was that the instructions issued by the Government of India and the State Government had no statutory force and they are not binding on it. Further it is observed by the learned Single Judge that the College has not denied that all the other colleges have adopted 60 years as the age of superannuation even in their service conditions and that whereas there are no service conditions insofar as this College is concerned. 9. With the above observations, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 08-08-1998 and directing the College to continue the petitioner in its service up to the age of 60 years i.e. till 30-6-2000 and accordingly he is entitled to all the consequential benefits. 10. Aggrieved thereof, this writ appeal is filed by respondent No.3 College. 11. Heard both sides. 12. Now, learned counsel for the College (appellant herein) contends that the College is an unaided college and that the scheme implemented by the Government of India in proceedings No. R.6-1/88-T.5 dated 28-2-1989 cannot be applicable to it for the reason that it is not getting any finance either from the Central Government or the State Government, and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge in directing it to pay all the benefits to the petitioner and to extend his service upto 60 years i.e. till 30-6-2000, is not sustainable. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) contended that the scheme implemented by the Government of India in proceedings No.F.No.6- 1/88-T.5 dated 28-2-1989 is applicable to all the colleges, which are under the control of the State Government either aided or unaided, for the reason that Section 20 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, the AICTE has got power to issue guidelines and such guidelines would bind all the institutions in the State and the same have to be enforced by them. Hence, the order of the learned single Judge in upholding the case of the writ petitioner that the age of superannuation is 60 years and that he is entitled to all consequential benefits, is valid. 14. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner tried to contend that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Krishnamacharyulu and others v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and another[1] where it is held that the teacher duly appointed to a post in the private institution also is entitled to seek enforcement of the orders issued by the Government, hence the College shall enforce the guidelines issued by the AICTE and also the scheme issued by the Central Government in proceedings F.No.6-1/88-T5 dated 28-2-1989. 15. Basing on paragraph No.4 of the Central Government scheme in proceedings F.No.6-1/88-T5 dated 28-2-1989, the learned counsel for the College has contended that the College has no financial assistance either from the Central Government or the State Government and that there is no interest created by the State Government in the Institution, and even there is no assistance to the State Government by the Central Government to the extent of 80% of additional expenditure as per the Scheme. It is also contended that the scheme would be applicable only to the colleges to which the Central Government would provide assistance to the State Governments to the extent of 80% of additional expenditure. In the absence of any assistance to the College either from the Central Government or the State Government and as the College is not qualified for financial assistance from the Central Government under the Scheme, the contention of the petitioner that he should be entitled to be continued up to the age of 60 years is not sustainable. 15. We had an occasion to go through the proceedings issued by the Central Government in F.No.6-1/88-T5 dated 28-2-1989. Paragraph No.4 of the said proceedings reads as under: “4. The scheme shall be implemented in all the technical education institutions fully financed by the Central Government. The Government of India have also decided to assist the state Governments who wish to adopt and implement the scheme of revised pay scales for teachers in the engineering colleges and other technical institutions in their states subject to the following terms and conditions: i) The Central Government will provide assistance to the State Governments to the extent of 80% of additional expenditure involved in giving effect to the scheme of revision of scales of pay. ii) The Central assistance to the extent indicated above will be available for the period from 1-1-1986 to 31-3-1998. iii) The State Governments will meet the remaining 20% of the expenditure from their own resources and will not pass on the liability or and portions thereof to the institutions. iv) The State Governments will take responsibility for maintaining the revised pay scales w.e.f. April, 1990. v) Central Assistance will be restricted to the revision of pay scales of the posts which were in existence on January 1, 1986.” 17. The above clause makes it very clear that the above Scheme shall be implemented in all the Technical Education Institutions fully financed by the Central Government and the Government of India would provide assistance to the State Government to the extent of 80% of additional expenditure involved in giving effect to the Scheme from 01-01-1986 to 31-03-1998 and the remaining 20% of the expenditure has to be provided by the State Government. 18. No material is placed before us, by the counsel for the petitioner, showing that the conditions of the Scheme have been satisfied by the College and in the absence of such satisfaction, as contended by the learned counsel for the College, it has to be concluded that the institution has no financial assistance either from the Central Government or the State Government and the judgment of the Apex Court, on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, goes to show that when there was an interest created by the Government in an institution to impart education, teachers get an element of public interest in performance of their duties, is not applicable to the facts of this case. 19. As the scheme envisages that the institution/college should be fully financed by the Central Government, more so, the assistance should be of 80% of additional expenditure and the institution should be qualified for the assistance of the Central Government and in the absence of the same for the College, we are of the opinion that the petitioner shall not make it obligatory on the part of the College to enforce the Scheme of the Central Government in proceedings F.No.6- 1/88-T5 dated 28-2-1989. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order dated 19-11-2004 in W.P. No.27642 of 1998 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J November 18, 2009. KTL [1] 1997(3) Supreme 433