C.W.P. No.17164 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.17164 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.01.2010 Zile Singh .....Petitioner Versus National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra through its Director and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jitender Bedwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Padam Kant Dwivedi, Advocate for Mr. B.S. Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ` -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition seeks to quash the action of the respondent by which the petitioner was being retired at the age of 60 on 31.12.2009. 2. The contention of the petitioner was that as per the direction of the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, the age of superannuation of Librarian, the cadre of physical education personnel of Centrally Funded Technical Institutions (CFTIs); C.W.P. No.17164 of 2009 (O&M) -2- and Registrar and Finance Officer of IITs, IISERs, NITs, IISC, Bangalore and other Deemed Universities would be on par with UGC and hence be fixed as 62 years, subject to their possessing the qualification and experience as prescribed by UGC from time to time. The enhanced age of superannuation of 62 years was directed to take effect from the date of the issue of the order namely on 16.09.2009. Admittedly, the petitioner was in service as on 16.09.2009. The petitioner, who had qualified in Physical Education and who held the post as a Lecturer, Physical Education was retired on 31.12.2009 on the basis that the petitioner did not possess the required qualification, as prescribed by the Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers in University and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standard, 2009, viz., the qualification of National Eligibility Test (NET) or other accredited test like SLET/SET in Physical Education conducted for the purpose by the UGC or any other agency approved by the UGC. The petitioner had all other qualifications but had not obtained qualification in NET. It was on this basis that the benefit of the Government Instructions was not given to the petitioner. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Malik contends that the NET qualification was applicable only in respect of fresh appointments and would not apply to persons, who had already been working as a Lecturer. The qualification of C.W.P. No.17164 of 2009 (O&M) -3- NET was introduced for the first time in the year 1999 and even then an exception was made out to Lecturers, who had already been serving as such. The relevant proviso to the Regulations of 2000 as was extended by that time read as follows:- “Provided further that these regulations shall not be applicable to such cases where selections of the candidates having had the then requisite qualification as were existing at that time through duly constituted Selection Committees for making appointments to the teaching posts have been made prior to the enforcement of these regulations.” 4. The petitioner himself has sought for a clarification with the UGC by means of a letter dated 03.01.2010 to which the response from the UGC on 07.01.2010 reads as follows:- “With reference to your letter dated 03.01.2010 on the subject cited above, I am directed to enclose herewith a copy of UGC Regulation, 2009 (3rd Amendment) and to inform you that these Regulations are effective from 11-17 July, 2009 for fresh appointment. However, you are advised to approach the concerned University/Institute for other matters.” The above letter makes it clear that the UGC Regulation, 2009 requiring NET qualification were for fresh appointment and C.W.P. No.17164 of 2009 (O&M) -4- consequently, by implication, persons that did not possess NET qualification were saved by the proviso referred to above. 5. The contention on behalf of the respondent that the requirement of qualification of NET would apply also to persons, who had joined prior to coming into force the 2000 Regulations and still later the 2009 Regulations, is not justified and the superannuation effected against the petitioner is not in terms of the notification issued by the Government providing for the extension of age from 60 years to 62 years. The petitioner is entitled to continue till he completes 62 years and he shall forthwith be reinstated and he shall be entitled to all monetary benefits applicable to his post. 6. The writ petition is allowed with costs assessed at Rs.5,000/-. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 11, 2010 Pankaj*