AICTE and UGC regulations are not binding on institutions unless adopted by the state government or affiliating universities

Facts of the Case

The appellant, P.J. Dharmaraj, was initially appointed as a Lecturer in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological (JNT) University in 1985 and later promoted to Reader in 1995. He became the Director of CSI Institute of Technology (CSIIT), a private unaided minority educational institution affiliated with JNT University, in 1998. The age of superannuation at that time was 60 years, as per prevailing AICTE and UGC regulations. However, in 2010, AICTE and UGC revised the superannuation age for teachers in technical institutions to 65 years. The appellant claimed this benefit but was relieved from his position at the age of 60 in 2018. His petitions challenging the retirement were dismissed by both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the High Court, leading to the present appeal.

Contentions of the Appellant

1. The appellant argued that the revised AICTE and UGC regulations mandating a retirement age of 65 years for teachers should apply to him, making his retirement at 60 premature and illegal.
2. He relied on judgments emphasizing that UGC regulations are binding and not merely recommendatory.
3. The appellant maintained that professional institutions cannot deviate from AICTE and UGC norms.

Contentions of the Respondents

1. The respondents contended that the State of Telangana, under G.O.Ms.No.40 (2012), had not adopted the revised UGC regulations for increasing the retirement age. Therefore, the age of superannuation in JNT University and its affiliated institutions remained 60 years.
2. As CSIIT is a private unaided minority institution affiliated with JNT University, the appellant could not claim benefits exceeding those applicable to the affiliating university.
3. The appellant primarily performed administrative duties as Director and did not qualify as a teacher under AICTE and UGC regulations.

Issues

1. Whether the revised AICTE and UGC regulations regarding retirement age are binding on unaided minority institutions affiliated with state universities.
2. Whether the appellant, as Director with primarily administrative duties, qualifies for the extended superannuation age for teachers.
3. Whether the appellant accepted his retirement at 60 by seeking retiral benefits.

Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court

1. The Court held that the revised retirement age under AICTE and UGC regulations did not automatically apply to institutions in Telangana, as the state government had not adopted these amendments.
2. CSIIT, being affiliated with JNT University, was bound by the state and university norms, which capped the retirement age at 60.
3. The appellant did not establish that he qualified as a teacher under AICTE/UGC regulations, as his role was primarily administrative.
4. The appellant’s representations for retiral benefits indicated his acceptance of retirement at 60.

Principle of the Case

The case underscores that AICTE and UGC regulations are not binding on institutions unless adopted by the state government or relevant affiliating universities. Administrative roles do not qualify for teacher-specific benefits under AICTE/UGC norms unless explicitly stated.

Final Order

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision that the appellant’s retirement at the age of 60 was valid and in accordance with applicable regulations.

Impact on Public Law and Order

This judgment reaffirms the autonomy of state governments and affiliated institutions in implementing AICTE/UGC regulations. It ensures consistency and fairness within state-specific frameworks, while discouraging claims of selective applicability of national norms. It emphasizes clarity in governance for private and minority educational institutions.

Case Citation

Supreme Court of India
Case Title: P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8457 of 2022)
Date of Judgment: December 6, 2024