The Madras High Court ordered the reinstatement of two members of the teaching faculty of Puducherry Technological University (PTU) who were forced to retire even before the stipulated age. It even held that rules on retirement age that go against the regulations laid by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) are invalid.
In a recent order, allowing writ petitions filed by S Kothandaraman, former acting principal and AV Raviprakash, professor, PTU, Justice V Parthiban observed, "This court is of the considered view that age of superannuation as prescribed under regulation 2.12 is binding on the respondent university and any other prescription of age of superannuation repugnant to the AICTE regulation is to be held void and inoperative and it cannot be enforced in law... There will be a direction to the respondent university to reinstate the petitioners in service forthwith and continue them in service till they attain the age of 65 years, as prescribed by AICTE regulations, 2019."
Within four weeks, the judge directed PTU to pass appropriate orders so that the petitioners can be reinstated with effect from the respective dates they retired from service. This needs to be done along with consequential benefits as well as all pay and allowances for the period.
It was in the year 2021 that both the petitioners were forced to retire when they were just 62, as opposed to the stipulated age of 65 for superannuation.
"In the teeth of the mandatory nature of AICTE regulation and also the decision of the courts which have clearly and categorically clarified the legal position as to the mandatory nature of the AICTE regulations, the stand adopted by the university that unless the regulations are specifically adopted by the university, the same cannot have automatic application is nothing but advancing a specious case on behalf of the university," Justice Parthiban said.
It was the opinion of the court that the university appears to be blissfully oblivious to the constitutional scheme and also various case laws which have consistently held that the AICTE regulations are mandatory in nature, the judge observed.
