According to the provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, the Petitioner, a 60-year-old Professor at Siddaganga Institute of Technology, was entitled to stay in service until the age of 65. The Institute, where the Petitioner worked as a Professor, published a list of staff members who would be retiring in 2020. The name of the Petitioner was mentioned in the notice. By ruling dated December 31, 2020, the Court had issued an interim stay pending the Petitioner's retirement. As a result, the Petitioner sought to have the Respondent Institute's notification quashed.
The Petitioner's Learned Counsel largely focused on the AICTE standards regulating the age of retirement for all faculty members, regardless of whether the Institute is a private or aided educational institution. According to the AICTE rules, the retirement age was 65 years.
The Petitioner's submissions were disputed by the Respondent's learned counsel. It was argued that as an unaided educational institute, the Institute has the right to set its policies and establish the age of retirement based on its criteria. It was also said that the State did not control the age at which personnel at the Institute might retire.
The Petitioner sought that the Respondent's Institute's notice of retirement be quashed and that the Respondent be directed to allow the Petitioner's employment to continue until the age of superannuation, which is 65 years old, as prescribed by the AICTE.
The Karnataka High Court stressed that the Institute was controlled by the AICTE's regulations. As a result, the court determined that it was necessary to investigate the AICTE regulations about the subject matter at hand. It was also mentioned that the AICTE Act extended to all degree-granting Technical Institutions. The court found that the Petitioner's appointment followed AICTE guidelines. The Karnataka High Court had concluded that the Petitioner's writ was entitled to succeed by citing several key Supreme Court of India cases.
The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution was granted by a single-judge bench of the High Court. The Petitioner was found to be entitled to continue working at the Respondent's Institute until the age of 65. In addition, as a cadre of Professor, the Petitioner was entitled to all perks.