Rajan C.K. v. State of Kerala and Kannur University

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 10995 of 2015 ## PETITIONER(S) RAJAN C.K. DEPUTY REGISTRAR,KANNUR UNIVERSITY,THAVAKKARA,CIVIL STATION P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT 670 002 BY ADVS.SRI.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU) SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE STATE OF KERALA THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 ## 2. KANNUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,THAVAKAKRA,CIVIL STATION P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT 670 002 R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL R2 BY ADV. SRI.VIJU THOMAS, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R BY SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 5-07-2018 WPC 16021/2015, THIS COURT ON 25/7/2018 DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10995 of 2015 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHBIIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO AD.A1/3005/2014 DATED 31-01-2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHBIIT P2 TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) NO 745/2014/H.EDN DATED 29-08-2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHBIIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE UGC NOTIFICATION ON REVISION OF PAY SCA;LES,MINIMUM QUALIFICATION FRO APPOINTMENTS OF TEACHERS IN UNIVERSITIES,COLLEGES AND OTHER MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS,1998 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.AD.A1/5005/2014 DT.1.6.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: NIL \\TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE ms A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ========================= W.P.(C).Nos.10995/2015 & 16021/2015 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 25[th] day of July, 2018 ## J U D G M E N T These writ petitions are filed by the Deputy Registrars of Kannur University alleging unequal treatment in regard to retirement age on the ground that the Deputy Registrars are not treated as statutory officers of the Kannur University. 2.Admittedly, the petitioners entered in the service of University in the lower cadre and were promoted to the post of Deputy Registrars during their course of service by way of promotion. The Government, as part of implementation of the UGC Regulations, 1998, have decided that the age of retirement of the statutory officers of the University i.e. the Registrar, Controller of Examinations and ``` WPC 10995/2015 & 16021/2015 ``` ## **-:2:-** Finance Officer shall be 60 years from the existing 56 years with effect from 29.8.2014. Ext.P2 is the copy of the said Government Order. The above posts are filled by direct recruitment. The petitioners' case is that the Government having decided to enhance the age of retirement of employees, who are styled as “statutory officers”, the petitioners are also entitled for such benefits. 3.The petitioners' argument rests on the definition of “statutory officers” as referred in Section 9 of the Kannur University Act, 1996. Section 9 states that the following shall be the officers of the University, namely:- - (i) the Vice-Chancellor; - (ii)the Pro-Vice-Chancellor; (iii) the Registrar; (iv)the Controller of Examinations; (v) the Finance Officer; and (vi)such other officers in the service of the University as may be declared by the Statutes to be officers of the University. ## **`WPC 10995/2015 & 16021/2015`** ## **-:3:-** Harping on serial (vi) therein and referring to Chapter II of the Kannur University First Statutes, 1998, an argument has been raised that the Deputy Registrar also would come within the meaning of Statutory Officer. The Kannur University First Statutes also refers to Deputy Registrar along with Assistant Registrar as the Officers of the University. 4. Would Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Joint Registrar form part of same class of the officers like Controller of Examinations, Finance Officer and Registrar for the benefit of enhancement of age, is the question to be considered in this writ petition. - 5.Admittedly, the channel of appointment to the post of Registrar, Finance Officer, Controller of Examinations is different. ## **`WPC 10995/2015 & 16021/2015`** ## **-:4:-** They are appointed directly. Merely because a reference has been made in the Government Order that, the Government has decided to enhance the retirement age of all Statutory Officers of the University, cannot itself make the Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar in the same class. They are different and distinct class. The minimum requirement for Registrar and Controller of Examinations is 5 years teaching experience. The post of Deputy Registrar is a promotion post and entry into the service as Assistant. The Government, treating them as a different class on account of method of selection and requisite qualifications, is justified in excluding Deputy Registrars and other officers of the University in the matter of enhancement of age. It is purely a matter of policy for the Government to enhance the retirement age, or not. ## **`WPC 10995/2015 & 16021/2015`** ## **-:5:-** 6.The learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S.Nakara and others v. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC 305][1983 KHC 325] and Union of India (UOI) v. Atul Shukla [(2014) 10 SCC 432] [MANU/SC/0866/2014] argued that classification of officers by the Government fixing different retirement age of the persons forming same class is violative of equal treatment guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, if they are equal, such differential treatment cannot be justified. The Government enhanced the age of retirement in tune with the UGC Regulations and taking note of qualification and selection procedure. There is a specific regulation in the UGC Regulation itself, as to the age of superannuation, to enhance the age of such ## **`WPC 10995/2015 & 16021/2015`** ## **-:6:-** officers, who are treated at par with teachers. Therefore, it is clear that it is only such officers, whose qualification is at par with teachers alone can be considered for enhancement of age. They form different class altogether. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- ## A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms