Chandra Bhushan Jha and Another vs State of Jharkhand and Others

The appellants filed W.P. (S) No. 4771 of 2001 before this Court seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the period of service of the petitioners as Professors of the University, allow them to continue till attaining the age of 62 years, for implementation of the notification issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the statutory direction issued by the Central Government and for other incidental reliefs.

According to the appellants, they were Professors and they were entitled to remain in service until their attaining the age of 62 years in view of the recommendation of the UGC issued under the University Grant Commission Act, 1956 and the State and the University who had accepted the recommendations of the UGC, were not justified in refusing to enhance the age of superannuation to 62 years from the current 60 years. The appellants could not dispute that u/s 67 of the Bihar State Universities Act, adopted in the State of Jharkhand, the age of superannuation of teachers like the appellants was 60 years. Their contention is that since under Entry 66 List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the Parliament has the power to legislate on higher education and for its regulation and to ensure excellence, the recommendation of the UGC as issued under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 should be accepted in toto by the State Government and the University and it was not open to the University and the State to take the stand that they will not accept the recommendation regarding the age of superannuation, as they have now done. The University submitted that as far as it was concerned, it being a creature of the statute, it was governed by Section 67 of the Bihar State Universities Act and it was bound to implement that provision so long it governs the University and unless the law was amended, the University could not implement the recommendation of the UGC or enhance the age of superannuation from the present 60 years to 62 years, as recommended by the UGC.

The State submitted that while adopting the recommendation of the UGC, the State had examined the question whether the age of superannuation should be increased and the committee constituted in that behalf, in Annexure ''A'' recommendations annexed to the counter affidavit, had recommended the adoption of some of the directions of the UGC but had specifically recommended that the age of superannuation be retained as 60 years as now obtaining u/s 67 of the Bihar State Universities Act. It was further submitted by the State that a mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to amend the law and so long as Section 67 of the Act remains on the statute book, the appellants and those like the appellants had to retire on attaining the age of 60 years.

The learned Single Judge, after referring to the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Prof. Ranjlt Singh Gandhi and Ors., v. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (2000) 3 PLJR 501 held that the provisions of Section 67 of the Act will prevail over the recommendations of the UGC and so long as Section 67 of the Act is in force, the age of superannuation had to be taken as 60 years and could not be enhanced to 62 years and in view of this the appellants were not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the object of the legislation under Entry 66 List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution was to ensure excellence in Higher Education, the recommendations of the UGC are binding on the State Government and the Universities and the State Government and the Universities cannot adopt the stand that they would not implement the recommendation regarding the age of superannuation. We find it not possible to accept this submission in view of the decisions referred to in the decision of the Patna High Court relied on by the learned Single Judge. We may in this connection refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in T.P. George and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others, wherein the Supreme Court held that the provision in the University statute would prevail over the recommendation. But of course, their Lordships also observed that it was necessary for the State and the Universities to consider the adoption of the recommendation in that behalf by the UGC. But what is relevant to note is that the scheme formulated by the UGC was held to be recommendatory and not mandatory. This view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of University of Delhi Vs. Raj Singh and others, wherein their Lordships specifically held that the regulations framed by the UGC in the year 1992 were not mandatory but were recommendatory and the University was governed by the statute of which it was a creature. These decisions have been referred to in the decision of the Patna High Court relied on by the learned Single Judge. No attempt was made to argue that fresh Regulations have been issued by the UGC having force of law and ultimately it had to be conceded that no such Regulation has been framed so that the question whether such a regulation will prevail, notwithstanding the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Delhi University case (supra), does not arise for consideration. Suffice it to say, as the law now stands, the position appears to be clear that the age of superannuation prescribed by Section 67 of the Bihar Universities Act would govern the appellants. In our view the learned Single Judge applied the correct principles of law to the claim raised by the appellants and has come to the correct conclusion.

In this situation, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of learned Single Judge. We, therefore, confirm the decision of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal. We make no order as to costs.