IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 1315 of 1999 Between: K.Hanumantha Rao S/o.Sri Radha Krishna Murthy R/o.Tenali, Guntur Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Human Resources Department Government Of India New delhi. 2 The University Grants Commission Rep by its Secretary BahadurShah, Zafar Marg New Delhi-110 002 3 Government Of Andhra Pradesh. Rep by its secretary Education Department Secretariat , Saifabad Hyderabad. 4 The Commissioner of Higher Education Nampally , Hyderabad. 5 The Principal of VSR & NVR College Tenali , Guntur Dist. 6 The Secretary & Correspondent VSR & NVR College Tenali , Guntur Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to May be pleased to issue a writ , order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus , declaring that the lecturers working in all the private aided college are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of superannuation of 62 years in accordance with the notification issued by the Govt of India in f.1-22/97-U.1, Dt: 27-07-1998 and consequently direct the respondents 3 to 6 herein to continue the petitioner in service till he attain the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits of arrears of salary, promotion, seniority etc. holding that the existing regulations issued by the State Govt were repugent to the notification issued by the Govt of India and pass such other or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:N.VENUGOPALA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following ORDER : This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus to declare that the Lecturers working in all the private aided colleges are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of superannuation of 62 years in accordance with the notification issued by the Government of India on 27.7.1998 and to consequently direct the respondents 3 to 6 not to retire and continue him in service till he attain the age of 62 years. The petitioner at the relevant point of time is working as Lecturer in Zoology in the 5th respondent college. He avers that the University Grants Commission constituted a Pay Review Committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. Rastogi, which committee had inter alia recommended 62 years as the age of superannuation for the teachers and upon considering the report submitted by this Committee, the University Grants Commission had made its recommendations in this regard to the Government of India and that the Government of India has accepted the same as per its notification dated 27.7.1998, but, however, the State Government has not given effect to the decision and they were seeking to retire at the age of 58 years. Hence, this writ petition. It will be important to notice right at this stage that the same question had fallen for consideration and adjudication before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6668 and batch which were decided on 9.5.2007 in the reported case of B.Bharat Kumar & Ors. V. Osmania University & Ors.[1] The Supreme Court had concluded the issue in the following terms : “17. In view of the plain and ambiguous language of the scheme, there would be no necessity on our part to attempt any interpretation. For the same reasons we need not consider the arguments based on the decisions in O.P.Singla, Maniklal Majudar, Chandrika Prasad Yadav & Dove Investments as they all pertained to principles of interpretation which exercise would have been necessary for us only if the language was ambiguous. It is also not necessary for us to extensively consider Dove Investment’s case as from the plain language of the scheme itself we find that it is not a mandatory scheme in the sense being binding against the State Governments. 18. For the similar reasons we do not see as to why the judgment in T.P.George’s case is not applicable to the present case. A very serious argyment was raised by the learned counsel that the judgment stood overruled by Yashpal’s case. We do not think so. Yashpal’s case was on entirely different issue. There the controversy was relating to a legislation creating number of universities. The question there was as to whether the State Government could create so many universities and whether the legislation, particularly in view of the fact that the subject of higher education was covered under Entry 66 of List I. Such is not the subject in the present case. Here is a case where there is no legislation. Even if we take the scheme to the higher pedestal of policy statement under Article 73 of the Constitution, the scheme itself suggests to be voluntary and not binding and the scheme itself gives a discretion to the State Government to accept it or not to accept it. If such is the case, we do not see the relevance of the Yashpal’s case in the present matter. Once this argument fails, the reference to the other cases which we have referred to earlier also becomes unnecessary. In our considered opinion all those cases relate to the legislative powers on the subject of education on the part of the State Government and the Central Government. In the present case we do not have any such legislation for being considered. Where the scheme itself gives the discretion to the State Government and where the State Government uses that discretion to accept a part of the scheme and not the whole thereof, it would be perfectly within the powers of the State Government not to accept the suggestion made by the scheme to increase the age of superannuation.” In view of this authoritative pronouncement, the lis raised in the instant case about the binding nature of the notification issued by the Union Government and the recommendations made by Prof. Rastogi’s Committee which were accepted by the University Grants Commission do not necessarily bind the State Government, for it to fix the age of superannuation of teachers like the writ petitioner at 62 years. Therefore, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed, but without costs. -------------------------------------- N.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Dt : 29.2.2008 Knk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RAGHU} [1] 2007(3) Supreme 1055