you're reading...
legal issues

the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, = whether certain regulations framed by the University Grants Commission had a binding effect on educational institutions being run by the different States and even under State enactments.= However, within this class of institutions there is a separate group where the State Governments themselves have taken a decision to adopt the scheme. In such cases, the consequences envisaged in the scheme itself would automatically follow. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court in all these matters in the light of the various submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. The several Appeals, Writ Petitions and the Transferred Case, which involve the same questions as considered in this batch of cases, are all dismissed. However, the Appeals filed by the State of Uttarakhand and Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 6724, 13747 and 14676 of 2012 are allowed. As far as the Transfer Petition Nos. 1062-1068 OF 2012 are concerned, the same are allowed and the Transferred Cases are dismissed. The Contempt Petitions are disposed of by virtue of this judgment. However, persons who have continued to work on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court or any other Court, shall not be denied the benefit of service during the said period. The Appeals and Petitions having been dismissed, both the State Authorities and the Central Authorities will be at liberty to work out their remedies in accordance with law.

reported in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40584

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5527-5543 OF 2013                      [@ SLP (C) Nos. 18766-18782/2010]

1 Jagdish Prasad Sharma etc. etc.    … Appellants


2 State of Bihar & Ors.                    … Respondents


C.A. NO.5544 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.29332 OF 2010   C.A. NO.5545 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.10661 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5546 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.10783 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5547 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.11605 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5548 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16523 OF 2011   C.A. NOS.5549-5551 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.12990-12992 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5552 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16845 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5553 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.21611 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5554 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.21609 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5555 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16619 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5556 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.17446 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5557 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.23392 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5558 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.25446 OF 2011   C.A. NOS.5559-5560 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.24037-24038 OF 2011   WP (C) NO.348 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5561 OF 2013 @ SLP(C)NO.3679 OF 2009   WP (C) NO.442 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5562 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.31422 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5563 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.1631 OF 2012   C.A. NOS.5564-5566 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.1632-1634 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5567 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.1635 OF 2012   C.A. NOS.5569-5573 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.1636-1640 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5574 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.1641 OF 2012   C.P. (C) 425 OF 2011 IN C.A. NO.5555 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16619 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5575 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.1544 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5576 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.2645 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5577 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.3028 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5578 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.3823 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5579 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.3077 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5580 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.2785 OF 2012   C.P. (C) 316 OF 2011 IN C.A. NO.5548 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16523 OF 2011   C.P. (C) 57 OF 2012 IN C.A. NO.5548OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16523 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5581 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.6003 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5582 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.6430 OF 2012   W.P. (C) NO.61 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5583 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.4020 OF 2012   C.A. NOS.5584-5592 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.6915-6923 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5593 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.8153 OF 2012   C.A. NOS.5594-5606 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.8887-8899 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5607 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.13359 OF 2012   C.A. NOS.5608-5610 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.13271-13273 OF 2012   C.A. NOS.5611-5615 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.10765-10769 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5616 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.30051 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5617 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.32571 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5618 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.30990 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5619 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.32596 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5620 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.23275 OF 2010   C.A. NOS.5621-5629 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.18218-18226 OF 2012   C.A. NOS.5630-5653 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.9198-9221 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5654 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.14163 OF 2011   C.A. NOS.5655-5658 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.14350-14353 OF 2011   C.A. NOS.5659-5660 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.16300-16301 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5661 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.18157 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5662 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.411 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5663 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.21508 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5664 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.25470 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5665 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.36126 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5666 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.7392 OF 2011   C.A. NOS.5667-5668 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.16107-16108 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5669 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16577 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5670 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16579 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5671 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16601 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5672 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16612 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5673 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16645 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5674 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16650 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5675 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16651 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5676 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16711 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5677 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.17296 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5678 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.17439 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5679 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16421 OF 2011   C.A. NOS.5680-5682 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.22670-22672 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5683 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.26449 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5684 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.24772 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5685 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.28373 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5686 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.29852 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5687 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.29975 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5688 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.23452 OF 2012   C.A. NOS.5689-5690 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.14694-14695 OF 2011   T.C.(C) Nos.100-106 OF 2013 @ TP (C) NOs.1062-1068 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5691 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.29283 OF 2010   C.A. NO.5692 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.29344 OF 2010   C.A. NO.5693 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.30735 OF 2010   C.A. NO.5694 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.30736 OF 2010   C.A. NO.5695 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.30737 OF 2010   C.A. NO.5696 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.30738 OF 2010   C.A. NO.5697 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.29807 OF 2010   C.A. NO.5698 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.35327 OF 2010   C.A. NO.5699 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.2348 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5700 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.2349 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5701 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.26233 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5702 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.21396 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5703 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.26724 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5704 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.22622 OF 2013 (CC 18057/2012)   C.A. NO.5705 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.33411 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5706 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.30250 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5707 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.22623 OF 2013 (CC 18532/2012)   C.A. NO.5708 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.22624 OF 2013 (CC 19243/2012)   WP (C) NO.88 OF 2012   C.A. NOS.5709-5773 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.32136-32200 OF 2011   C.A. NOS.5774-5788 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.32748-32762 OF 2011   C.A. NOS.5789-5790 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.32768-32769 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5791 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.36606 OF 2011   C.A. NO.5792 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.4202 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5793 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.5262 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5794 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.12128 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5795 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.12129 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5796 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16519 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5797 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.23339 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5798 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.23342 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5799 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.23338 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5800 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.20136 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5801 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.37288 OF 2012   C.A. NOS.5802-5803 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.37947-37948 OF 2012   C.A. NOS.5804-5805 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.37949-37950 OF 2012   C.A. NOS.5806-5809 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.8301-8304 OF 2012   T.C.(C) NO.27 OF 2013   C.A. NO.5810 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.6724 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5811 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.13747 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5812 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.14676 OF 2012   W.P(C) NO.83 OF 2013   C.A. NO.5813 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.36955 OF 2012   C.A. NO.5814 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.28326 OF 2012   W.P.(C) NO.53 OF 2013   C.A. NO.5815 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.8147 OF 2013   C.A. NO.5816 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.22626 OF 2013 (CC 5514/2013)   C.A. NO.5817 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.22627 OF 2013 (CC 5518/2013   C.A. NO.5818 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.22628 OF 2013 (8248/2013)



1.    Leave granted in the Special Leave  Petitions,  which  were  taken  upalong with the Writ Petitions and Transferred Cases,  as  they  all  involvecommon questions of law and fact.
2.    The common thread running through all these  various  matters  is  thequestion as to whether certain regulations framed by the  University  GrantsCommission had a binding effect on educational  institutions  being  run  bythe different States and even under State enactments.
3.    The University Grants Commission Act  was  enacted  by  Parliament  in1956 inter alia with the object of making  provision  for  the  coordinationand determination of standards in Universities  and  for  that  purpose,  toestablish a University Grants Commission, hereinafter  referred  to  as  the“Commission”.   Under  the   University   Grants   Commission   Act,   1956,hereinafter referred to as the “UGC Act”,  the  Commission  is  required  totake, in consultation with the Universities or other concerned  bodies,  allsuch steps as it may  think  fit  for  the  promotion  and  coordination  ofUniversity education and for the determination and maintenance of  standardsof teaching, examination and research in Universities.
4.    Section 12 of the UGC  Act  inter  alia  empowers  the  Commission  toinquire into the financial needs of the Universities, allocate and  disbursegrants to Universities established or incorporated by  or  under  a  CentralAct, out of the Funds of the Commission for the maintenance and  developmentof such Universities or for any other general  or  specified  purpose.   TheCommission was also empowered to allocate and disburse, out of  such  Funds,such grants to other Universities, as it may deem necessary  or  appropriatefor  the  development  of  such  Universities  or  for  the  maintenance  ordevelopment or for any other general or specified purpose.   The  Commissionwas further empowered to allocate and disburse, such grants to  institutionsdeemed to be Universities, as it deemed necessary, for similar purposes.
5.    Section 25 of the UGC Act empowers  the  Central  Government  to  makeRules to carry out the purposes of the Act by notification in  the  OfficialGazette,  with  regard  to  the  formation  and  the  functioning   of   theCommission.   Section  26  empowers  the  Commission  to  make   Regulationsconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder,  bynotification in the Official Gazette inter alia in regard  to  defining  thequalifications that should ordinarily  be  required  of  any  person  to  beappointed to the teaching staff of  the  University  having  regard  to  thebranch of education in which he or she is required to give instructions  andto define the minimum standards of instructions for the grant of any  degreeby any University.  In keeping with their  statutory  character,  the  Rulesand Regulations framed by the Central  Government  and  the  Commission  arerequired to be placed before each  House  of  Parliament,  while  it  is  insession, for a total period of 30 days.
6.    Section 20  of  the  UGC  Act,  particularly,  provides  that  in  thedischarge of its functions under the said  Act,  the  Commission  is  to  beguided by such directions  on  questions  of  policy  relating  to  nationalpurposes, as may be given to it by the Central Government.
7.    On 24th December,  1998,  the  Commission  issued  a  Notification  onrevision of pay scales, minimum qualification for  appointment  of  teachersin  Universities,  colleges  and  other  measures  for  the  maintenance  ofstandards.  In Clause 5 of the  Notification,  it  was  specified  that  theCommission expected that the  entire  scheme  of  revision  of  pay  scales,together with all conditions attached to it, would  be  implemented  by  theState Governments, as a composite scheme without any  modifications,  exceptfor the date of implementation and the scales of pay, as  indicated  in  theGovernment  of  India  Notifications   dated   27.7.1998,   22.9.1998,   and6.11.1998.  Clause 16 of the Notification also indicated that  the  teacherswill retire at the age of 62 years, but it would be open to a University  ora  college  to  re-employ  a  superannuated  teacher.    Subsequently,   theCommission, in exercise of  the  powers  conferred  upon  it  under  Section26(1)(e) and (f) of the UGC Act, framed  the  University  Grants  Commission(Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and career  advancementof teachers in Universities and institutions affiliated to  it)  Regulation,2000.  The said Regulation  does  not,  however,  provide  for  the  age  ofsuperannuation.
8.    On 23rd  March,  2007,  the  Government,  in  its  Ministry  of  HumanResource  Development,  Department  of  Higher  Education,  wrote   to   theSecretary of the Commission on the question of enhancement  of  the  age  ofsuperannuation  from  62  years  to  65  years  for  teaching  positions  inCentrally funded institutions, in higher and technical  education.   In  thesaid communication, it was mentioned that at the time  of  revision  of  payscales of teachers in Universities and colleges, following the  revision  ofpay scales of Central Government employees, on the  recommendations  of  theFifth Central Pay Commission,  it  had  been  provided  inter  alia  in  theMinistry’s letter dated 27th July, 1998 that the age  of  superannuation  ofteachers in University and schools would be 62  years  and,  thereafter,  noextension in service should be given.  However, the power to  re-employ  thesuperannuated teacher up to the age of 65  years  would  remain  open  to  aUniversity or a college, according to the  existing  guidelines,  framed  bythe Commission.  In the letter, it was also indicated that  the  matter  hadbeen reviewed by the Central  Government,  in  the  light  of  the  existingshortage in teaching  positions  in  the  Centrally-funded  institutions  inhigher and technical education under the Ministry and, in that  context,  ithad been decided that the age of superannuation  of  all  persons  who  wereholding posts as on 15.3.2007, in any of the  Centrally  funded  higher  andtechnical education under the Ministry, would stand increased from 62 to  65years.  It was also decided  that  persons  holding  such  regular  teachingpositions, but had superannuated prior to 15.3.2007, on  attaining  the  ageof 62 years, but had not attained the age of 65 years, could be  re-employedagainst vacant sanctioned teaching positions, till they attained the age  of65 years, in accordance with the guidelines framed by  the  Commission.   Itwas lastly  indicated  that  the  enhancement  of  retirement  age  and  theprovisions for  re-employment  would  only  apply  to  persons  in  teachingpositions against posts sanctioned in Centrally-funded higher and  technicaleducation institutions, in order to overcome the shortage of teachers.
9.    The most important development, at the  relevant  time,  however,  wasthe issuance of a letter by the Central Government in its Ministry of  HumanResource Development, Department of  Higher  Education,  to  the  Secretary,University Grants Commission on 31st December, 2008, regarding a  scheme  ofrevision of pay of teachers and other  equivalent cadres in all the  Centraluniversities and colleges and Deemed Universities,  following  the  revisionof pay scales of the Central Government employees on the  recommendation  ofthe Sixth Central Pay Commission, subject to all  the  conditions  mentionedin the letter and the Regulations.  The  State  Governments  were  given  anoption to adopt the scheme in its composite form.
10.   While generally dealing  with  matters  relating  to  appointment  andpromotion, it was reiterated that in order to  meet  the  situation  arisingout  of  shortage  of  teachers  in  Universities  and  in  other   teachinginstitutions and the consequent vacant positions, age of  superannuation  ofteachers in Centrally-funded institutions had already been  enhanced  to  65years.  It  was  mentioned  in  the  said  letter  that  after  taking  intoconsideration the recommendations  made  by  the  Commission  based  on  thedecisions taken at its meeting, held on  7th  and  8th  October,  2006,  theGovernment of India had decided to revise the pay scales of teachers in  theCentral Universities.  It was further stipulated that the  revision  of  payscales of teachers would be subject to various provisions of the  Scheme  ofrevision of pay scales, as contained in the said letter and  Regulations  tobe framed by the Commission in this  behalf.   Paragraph  8  of  the  Schemedeals with other terms and conditions, apart from  those  already  mentionedand Clause (p)(i) thereof, which deals with the applicability of the  Schemeand relevant for our purpose is extracted hereinbelow:           “(p)  Applicability of the Scheme:
(i)       This Scheme shall be applicable to teachers and  other           equivalent cadres of Library and Physical Education in  all  the           Central  Universities   and   Colleges   there-under   and   the           Institutions  Deemed  to  be  Universities   whose   maintenance           expenditure is met by the UGC. The implementation of the revised           scales shall be subject to the acceptance of all the  conditions           mentioned in this letter as well as Regulations to be framed  by           the UGC in this behalf. Universities  implementing  this  Scheme           shall be advised by the UGC to amend their relevant statutes and           ordinances in line with the UGC Regulations within three  months           from the date of issue of this letter.”

11.   Clause (p)(v) of the said paragraph, which  is  equally  relevant,  isalso extracted hereinbelow:           “(p)(v) This Scheme may be extended  to  universities,  Colleges           and other  higher  educational  institutions  coming  under  the           purview of State legislatures, provided State  Governments  wish           to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the following terms           and conditions:
(a)   Financial assistance from the Central Government to  State           Governments opting to revise pay scales of  teachers  and  other           equivalent cadre covered under the Scheme shall  be  limited  to           the extent of 80% (eighty percent) of the additional expenditure           involved in the implementation of the revision.
(b) The State Government opting for revision of pay  shall  meet           the remaining 20% (twenty percent) of the additional expenditure           from its own sources.
(c) Financial assistance referred to  in  sub-clause  (a)  above           shall be provided for the period from 1.01.2006 to 31.03.2010.
(d)   The entire liability on account of revision of pay  scales           etc. of university and college teachers shall be taken  over  by           the State Government opting for  revision  of  pay  scales  with           effect from 1.04.2010.
(e) Financial assistance from the Central  Government  shall  be           restricted to revision of pay scales in respect  of  only  those           posts which were in existence and  had  been  filled  up  as  on           1.01.2006.
(f) State Governments, taking  into  consideration  other  local           conditions, may also decide in their  discretion,  to  introduce           scales of pay higher than those mentioned in  this  Scheme,  and           may give effect to the revised bands/ scales of pay from a  date           on or after 1.01.2006; however, in such cases,  the  details  of           modifications  proposed  shall  be  furnished  to  the   Central           Government and Central assistance shall be restricted to the Pay           Bands as approved by the  Central  Government  and  not  to  any           higher scale of pay fixed by the State Government(s).
(g) Payment of Central assistance for implementing  this  Scheme           is also subject to the  condition  that  the  entire  Scheme  of           revision of pay scales, together with all the conditions  to  be           laid down by the UGC by way of Regulations and other  guidelines           shall be implemented by State Governments and  Universities  and           Colleges coming under their jurisdiction as a  composite  scheme           without any  modification  except  in  regard  to  the  date  of           implementation and scales of pay mentioned herein above.”

12.   Paragraph  8(f)  of  the  aforesaid  Scheme  deals  with  the  age  ofsuperannuation,  which  has  already  been  dealt  with  hereinbefore.    Insubstance, it provides that in order to meet the situation  arising  out  ofshortage of teachers and also to attract people to the teaching  profession,it had been decided to retain the services of teachers till the  age  of  65years, as already intimated to all universities and colleges by  the  letterdated 23.3.2007, issued by  the  Department  of  Higher  Education,  in  theMinistry of Human Resource Development, Government of India.
13.   Following the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission,  the  BiharLegislature  passed  the   Bihar   State   Universities   (Amendment)   Act,substituting Section 67 of the Bihar State Universities Act,  enhancing  theage of superannuation to 62 years.  Since the  said  Amendment  also  has  adefinite bearing in the appeals filed by Prof. (Dr.) Jagdish Prasad  Sharma,the amended provision, namely, Section 67(a) is extracted hereinbelow:
“(a)  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in  any           Act, Rules, Statutes,  Regulation  or  Ordinance,  the  date  of           retirement of a teaching employee of  the  University  or  of  a           college shall be the date on which he attains the age  of  sixty           two years.  The date of retirement of a teaching  employee  will           be the same which would be  decided  by  the  University  grants           Commission.

The date of retirement  of  non-teaching  employee  (other           than the inferior servants)  shall  be  the  date  on  which  he           attains the age of sixty two years:

Provided that the University shall, in no case, extend the           period of  service  of  any  of  the  teaching  or  non-teaching           employee after he attains the age of sixty two years as the case           may be.

Provided further  also  that  re-appointment  of  teachers           after retirement may be made in appropriate cases up to the  age           of sixty five years in the manner laid down in the Statutes made           in  this  behalf  in  accordance  with  the  guidelines  of  the           University Grants Commission.”
14.   Similarly, Section 64(a) of the Patna University Act was also  amendedon similar basis.  Since the decision of  the  Ministry  of  Human  ResourceDevelopment,  as  conveyed  in  its  letter  of  23.3.2007,  was  not  beingimplemented, Writ Petitions, being CWJC Nos. 4823 and  5390  of  2008,  werefiled by some teachers seeking enhancement  of  the  age  of  superannuationfrom 62 to 65 years, based upon the aforesaid decision of  the  Ministry  ofHuman Resource Development.  Both the Writ Petitions were dismissed  by  theHigh Court on the ground that there was no conscious decision taken  by  UGCwith regard to teachers working in State Universities since the  enhancementwas confined to Centrally-funded Universities.
15.   On 3.10.2008, the Pay  Review  Committee  set  up  by  the  Commissionsubmitted its Report to the Commission  relating  to  the  revision  of  payscales of teachers,  qualification  for  appointment,  service  and  workingconditions  and  promotional  avenues  of  teachers  in   Universities   andcolleges,  and  at  clause  5.4.2,  it   recommended   that   the   age   ofsuperannuation throughout the country should  be  65  years,  whether  in  aState or Central University, as also in a college or in  a  University.   Inits 452nd meeting, the Commission took a conscious decision and  recommendedthe Report of the  Pay  Review  Committee  for  acceptance  by  the  CentralGovernment.  Pursuant  to  the  said  decision  and  recommendation  of  theCommission, the Ministry of Human Resource Development  published  a  Schemeon 31.12.2008, which has already been referred to hereinbefore.
16.   As no action was taken even  thereafter,  the  Appellants  filed  WritPetition, being CWJC No. 2330 of 2009, before the  Patna  High  Court.   Thesaid matter was heard along  with  several  other  similar  Writ  Petitions,wherein claims were made by the Petitioners under the amended provisions  ofthe Patna University Act and Bihar State Universities Act.

17.   On 6.10.2009, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions  andheld that the State Government had no discretion as  they  were  statutorilybound  by  the  decision  of  the  Commission  to   enhance   the   age   ofsuperannuation. Letters Patent Appeal No. 117 of 2010  and  other  connectedLPAs were filed by the State of Bihar challenging the aforesaid judgment  ofthe learned Single Judge.  On 18.5.2010, a Division Bench of the Patna  HighCourt allowed LPA No. 117 of 2010, filed by  the  State  of  Bihar.   It  isagainst the said judgment of the Division  Bench  that  SLP(C)  Nos.  18766-18782 were filed by the Appellants herein in June, 2010.  On 30.6.2010,  theCommission framed the Regulations of 2010.
18.   This brings us to the substantial  challenge,  in  these  appeals  andconnected Writ Petitions and Transferred Cases,  as  has  been  set  out  inparagraph 2 of the impugned judgment of the  Division  Bench  of  the  PatnaHigh Court, which is, whether in view  of  the  decision  contained  in  theletter dated 31.12.2008  issued  by  the  Department  of  Higher  Education,Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, in the  contextof Section 64(a) of the Patna University Act, 1976 and Section 67(a) of  theBihar State Universities Act, the age of superannuation of teachers  workingin different Universities and  colleges  of  Bihar  would  automatically  beenhanced to 65 years.  The focus is, therefore, on whether in  view  of  theScheme mentioned in  the  aforesaid  letter  of  31.12.2008,  not  only  theCentral Universities and colleges, which were bound by the UGC  Regulations,but the different States and institutions situated therein  would  be  boundto accept the Scheme, as set out in the said letter of 31.12.2008.   As  hasbeen mentioned hereinbefore, the  Scheme  envisaged  in  31.12.2008,  in  nouncertain terms, indicates that in  case  the  State  Governments  opted  torevise the pay scales of teachers and other equivalent cadres covered  underthe Scheme, financial assistance from the Central Government to  such  StateGovernments would be to the extent of  80%  of  the  additional  expenditureinvolved in the implementation of the revision.  The Scheme  also  indicatesthat the State Government which opted for revision of pay scales would  haveto meet the remaining  20%  of  the  additional  expenditure  from  its  ownsources.  The third consideration is that such  financial  assistance  wouldbe  provided  for  the  period  from  1.1.2006  to  31.3.2010,   and   that,thereafter, the entire liability on account of revision  of  pay  scales  ofthe University and college teachers would have  to  be  taken  over  by  theState Government with  effect  from  1.4.2010.   The  fourth  and  the  mostimportant condition  stipulated  by  the  Commission  was  that  payment  ofCentral  assistance  for  implementing  the  Scheme  was  subject   to   theconditions that the entire Scheme of revision of pay scales,  together  withall the conditions to be laid down by the UGC, by  way  of  Regulations  andother guidelines, would have to be implemented by the State  Government  andUniversities and Colleges coming under their jurisdiction,  as  a  compositescheme, emphasis supplied, without any modification except in regard to  thedate of implementation  and  scales  of  pay  mentioned  hereinabove.   Thisentailed and included the enhancement of age of such teachers to  65  years.In other words, along with the enhancement of pay, of  which  80%  would  beborne by the Commission, the other condition of the Commission was that  theage of the teachers would be enhanced to 65 years, and that the balance  20%of the expenditure would have  to  be  borne  by  the  State  from  its  ownresources till 31.3.2010, and, thereafter, the entire burden of  expenditurewould have to be borne by the State.
19.   It appears that the States of West  Bengal,  Uttar  Pradesh,  Haryana,Punjab and Madhya Pradesh implemented the Scheme  without  waiting  for  theUGC Regulations, which were framed  only  on  30.6.2010,  whereas  the  saidScheme was implemented by the aforesaid States long before  the  said  date.It is when the reimbursement of 80% of the expenses was sought for from  theCentral Government, that the problems  arose,  since  in  keeping  with  thecomposite  scheme,  the  concerned  States  had  not  enhanced  the  age  ofsuperannuation simultaneously.  The Central Government took the  stand  thatsince the Scheme in its composite form had not been given effect to  by  theStates concerned, the question of reimbursement of 80% of the  expenses  didnot arise.  This is one of the core issues, which has arisen in these  casesfor decision.
20.   The ripple effect of the stand taken by  the  Central  Government  wasfelt all over the  country  and,  accordingly,  matters  were  moved  beforedifferent High Courts which have  ultimately  come  up  to  this  Court  forhearing on such common issues.
21.   The lead case, however, is that of Prof. (Dr.) Jagdish Prasad  Sharma,who has moved against the judgment of the Division Bench of the  Patna  HighCourt on several grounds, including the grounds indicated hereinabove.   Oneof the other grounds taken as far as the Patna cases are  concerned,  is  inregard to the interpretation of Section 64(a) of the Patna  University  Act,1976, introduced by the Amendment Act of 2006,  and  Section  67(a)  of  theBihar  State  Universities  Act,  1976,  introduced  by  the   Bihar   StateUniversities (Amendment) Act, 2006, which has been  reproduced  hereinabove.Learned counsel for the Appellants has claimed that although  in  the  firstpart of the two amended provisions, it has been indicated that the  date  ofretirement of a teaching employee of the University or college would be  thedate on which he attains the  age  of  62  years,  the  said  condition  waspurportedly watered down by the addition of the further condition  that  thedate of retirement of a teaching employee would be the same, which would  bedecided by  the  University  Grants  Commission  in  future.   It  has  beencontended that on a construction of the aforesaid  provision,  it  is  amplyclear that though when the amendment was effected it was  the  intention  ofthe Legislature that the age  of  superannuation  should  be  62  years,  nofinality was attached to  the  same,  since  the  final  decision  regardingsuperannuation lay with any decision that might be taken by  the  UniversityGrants Commission in future.  It has been contended that  since  a  decisionhad been taken by the Ministry of Human Resource Development as far back  on23.3.2007 to enhance the age of superannuation from 62 to  65  years,  whichwas also subsequently recommended by the Commission in  its  452nd  meeting,where a conscious decision was taken to implement  the  Report  of  the  PayReview  Committee  recommending  the  age  of  superannuation  to  65  yearsthroughout the country whether in a State or central University  or  whetherin a college or in a University, it was incumbent on  the  State  Governmentto implement the said recommendation of the  University  Grants  Commission,subsequently endorsed by the Department of  Higher  Education,  Ministry  ofHuman Resource Development, Government of India.
22.   Appearing for the Appellants, Mr. Ajit  Kumar  Sinha,  learned  SeniorAdvocate, submitted that Section 11 of the UGC Act provides that all  ordersand decisions of the Commission are to be authenticated by the signature  ofthe Chairman.  It was submitted that Section 12 of the UGC Act made  furtherprovision that it would be the general duty of the Commission  to  take,  inconsultation with the University or other concerned bodies, all  such  stepsas it thought necessary for the promotion  and  coordination  of  Universityeducation  and  for  the  determination  and  maintenance  of  standards  ofteaching,  examination  and  research  in  the  Universities.    Mr.   Sinhasubmitted that it would thus be apparent  that  the  Commission  could  takedecisions which were independent of its power  to  frame  Regulations  underSection 26 or to issue Notifications under Section 3 of the Act.  Mr.  Sinhasubmitted that the State of Bihar was, therefore, bound to  acknowledge  theage of superannuation as 65  years  with  effect  from  31.12.2010  for  theAppellants.
23.   Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, who  appeared  in  some  ofthe matters, reiterated the submissions made by Mr. Sinha and  re-emphasizedthe fact that  on  7.2.2011,  the  Government  of  Bihar  had  accepted  theenhancement of age from 62 to 65 years for those  who  were  in  service  on30.6.2010.  Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that the  judgment  of  the  DivisionBench impugned in these proceedings does not suffer from any infirmity  and,therefore, did not warrant any interference.
24.   The next set of cases related to the State of  Kerala  with  Mr.  K.K.Venugopal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the  Appellants  in  CivilAppeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12990-12992  of  2011.   Mr.  Venugopal’sstand was different from those of  Mr.  Ajit  Kumar  Sinha  and  Mr.  RanjitKumar,  learned  Senior  Advocates,  and  supported  the   action   of   theCommission.  Mr. Venugopal submitted that the Kerala University  Act,  1974,and the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, inter  alia  provided  forthe age of superannuation at 60 years.  In the affiliated colleges, the  ageof superannuation was fixed at 55 years.  Mr. Venugopal submitted  that  thestand taken by the State of Kerala was a little  different  from  the  standtaken by the other States, since there were a large number of qualified  andeligible persons who were unemployed and were waiting  for  employment,  whowould ultimately fall prey to frustration if the services of those  who  hadsuperannuated at  the  age  of  62  years  were  to  be  continued,  therebydepriving  eligible  candidates   waiting   to   be   employed.    In   suchcircumstances, the State of Kerala was not interested in increasing the  ageof superannuation from 62 years to 65 years.  Referring  to  the  letter  ofthe Ministry of Human  Resource  Development,  Government  of  India,  dated31.12.2008,  Mr.  Venugopal   contended   that   in   all   Centrally-fundedinstitutions  a  general  direction  had  been  given  that   the   age   ofsuperannuation would be 65 years in place of 62 years.
25.    Mr.  Venugopal  further  urged  that  the  Regulations  made  by  theCommission  were  applicable  to  Centrally-funded  institutions  and   alsoincluded by reference the entirety of the Scheme of 31.12.2008, as  part  ofthe  Regulations  and  made  it  applicable  to  State  institutions.    Mr.Venugopal urged that the UGC Regulations  being  Central  legislation  underEntry 66 List I of the Seventh Schedule  to  the  Constitution,  they  wouldhave primacy over the executive and State  laws  and  the  Government  Orderdated 10.12.2010 was liable to be struck down.
26.   While referring to the scope of  Entry  66,  List  I  of  the  SeventhSchedule to the Constitution, Mr. Venugopal  referred  to  the  decision  ofthis Court in the University of Delhi Vs. Raj  Singh  [(1994)  Suppl  3  SCC516], wherein it was held that the Regulations  of  the  Commission  in  thesaid  case  would  not  be  binding  on  the  University  of   Delhi   beingrecommendatory and did not impinge upon the  University’s  power  to  selectits teachers.  However, if the  University  chose  not  to  accept  the  UGCRegulations, it would lose its grant from the UGC.
27.   During the course of his submissions, Mr. Venugopal  referred  to  theorder issued by the  Government  of  Kerala  in  the  Higher  Education  (C)Department on 10.12.2010 for implementation of the UGC Regulations  2010  onminimum qualifications for appointment of teachers, other academic staff  inUniversities and colleges and measures for the maintenance of  standards  inhigher education.  The Government Order further  provided  that  the  matterhad been examined in detail and the Government was,  therefore,  pleased  toapprove  and  to  implement  the  Regulations  as  such.   The  Regulations,therefore, were to come into force from  18.9.2010  on  the  date  of  theirpublication in the Government of India Gazette.  All the  Universities  weredirected  to  incorporate  the  UGC  Regulations  in  their   Statutes   andRegulations, within one month from the date of  the  Order.   Mr.  Venugopaljoined issue with the contents of paragraph  6  of  the  said  Order,  whichprovides  that  where  there  were  any  provisions   in   the   Regulationsinconsistent with the provisions in the Government Order, read as the  firstpaper, the said Government  Order  would  override  the  provisions  in  theRegulations to the extent of such inconsistency.   Mr.  Venugopal  submittedthat executive directions cannot override the statutory  provisions  and  itwas the  statutory  provisions  which  would  prevail  over  such  executivedirections.  Consequently,  the  UGC  Regulations  would,  in  these  cases,prevail over the Orders of the Executive government.   In  this  connection,Mr.  Venugopal  referred  to  the  decision  of   this   Court   in   PaluruRamkrishnaiah Vs. Union of India [(1989) 2 SCC 541], wherein relying on  twoearlier decisions of this Court  in  B.N.  Nagarajan  Vs.  State  of  Mysore[(1966) 3 SCR 682] and Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan [(1968) 1  SCR111], a Constitution Bench of this Court in Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar  Vs.State of Maharashtra [(1974) 1  SCC  317],  held  that  in  the  absence  oflegislative Rules it was competent  for  the  State  Government  to  take  adecision in the exercise of its executive power under  Article  162  of  theConstitution.  Therefore, an  executive  instruction  could  make  provisiononly for a matter which was not covered by  the  Rules  and  such  executiveinstructions could  not  override  any  of  the  provisions  of  the  Rules.Accordingly, the learned counsel submitted that the Government  Order  dated10.12.2010 was liable to be struck down.
28.   Mr. Venugopal also referred to the decision of this Court in the  caseof the Gujarat University, Ahmedabad Vs. Krishna Ranganath  Mudholkar  [1963Suppl 1 SCR 112], wherein it was inter alia observed as follows:           “The State has the power to prescribe the syllabi and courses of           study in the institutions named in Entry  66  (but  not  falling           within entries 63 to 65) and as an incident thereof it  has  the           power to indicate the medium  in  which  instruction  should  be           imparted. But the Union Parliament has an overriding legislative           power to ensure that the syllabi and courses of study prescribed           and the medium selected do not impair standards of education  or           render the co-ordination of such  standards  either  on  an  All           India or other basis impossible or even difficult. Thus,  though           the powers of the Union and of the State are  in  the  Exclusive           Lists, a degree of overlapping is inevitable. It is not possible           to lay down any general test which would afford a  solution  for           every question which might arise on this head. On the’ one hand,           it is certainly within the province of the State Legislature  to           prescribe syllabi and  courses  of  study  and,  of  course,  to           indicate the medium or media of instruction. On the other  hand,           it is also within the power of the Union to legislate in respect           of media of  instruction  so  as  to  ensure  co-ordination  and           determination of standards, that is  to  ensure  maintenance  or           improvement of standards.  The  fact  that  the  Union  has  not           legislated, or refrained from legislating to the full extent  of           its powers does not invest the State with the power to legislate           in respect of a matter  assigned  by  the  Constitution  to  the           Union. It  does  not,  however,  follow  that  even  within  the           permitted  relative  fields  there  might  not  be   legislative           provisions in enactments made  each  in  pursuance  of  separate           exclusive and distinct powers which  may  conflict.  Then  would           arise the question of repugnancy and paramountcy which may  have           to be resolved on the application of the “doctrine of  pith  and           substance” of the impugned enactment. The validity of the  State           legislation on University education and as regards the education           in technical and  scientific  institutions  not  falling  within           Entry 64 of List I would have to  be  judged  having  regard  to           whether it impinges on the field reserved for  the  Union  under           Entry 66. In other words,  the  validity  of  State  legislation           would depend upon whether it prejudicially affects co-ordination           and determination of standards, but not upon  the  existence  of           some  definite  Union  legislation  directed  to  achieve   that           purpose. If  there  be  Union  legislation  in  respect  of  co-           ordination and  determination  of  standards,  that  would  have           paramountcy over the State law by virtue of the  first  part  of           Art. 254(1); even if that power be not exercised  by  the  Union           Parliament  the  relevant  legislative  entries  being  in   the           exclusive lists, a State law  trenching  upon  the  Union  field           would still be invalid.”
Mr. Venugopal, therefore, contended that  the  UGC  Regulations  wouldhave an overriding effect over the Government Order  dated  10.12.2010  and,in any event, the U.G.C. could not abdicate its authority  regarding  highereducation to the States.
29.   Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants in Civil Appeals  arisingout of SLP (C) Nos. 10765-69  of  2011  and  learned  counsel  appearing  onbehalf of other Appellants, in relation  to  the  matters  relating  to  theState of Kerala, adopted Mr. Venugopal’s submissions and it was pointed  outby Mrs. V.P. Seemanthini that there was  a  marked  difference  between  the2000 Regulations framed by the Commission and the subsequent Regulations  of2010.  It was submitted by her that  while  the  2000  Regulations  did  notprovide for any age of superannuation, in the 2010 Regulations, there  is  amandate to the State Government to follow the same.
30.   However, appearing for the Appellants in Civil Appeal arising  out  ofSLP(C) No. 23275 of  2010,  Dr.  K.P.  Kylasanatha  Pillay,  learned  SeniorAdvocate, took a different stand from that of  Mr.  Venugopal.   He  pointedout that the Appellants were all Selection Grade Lecturers  and  Readers  ofSree Narayana College, Kollam, an aided institution situated  in  the  Stateof Kerala.  Referring to the Scheme formulated by  the  Central  Government,which also included the question relating  to  age  of  superannuation,  Dr.Pillay reiterated that in order to meet a situation arising out of  shortageof teachers in Universities and other  teaching  institutions,  the  age  ofsuperannuation for teachers in Central educational institutions had  alreadybeen enhanced to 65 years.  Dr.  Pillay  urged  that  the  benefits  of  thepackage scheme which was implemented with effect from 1.1.2006, relating  toenhancement of age of superannuation  to  65  years,  should  also  be  madeavailable to the Appellants.  Dr. Pillay  submitted  that  so  long  as  theAppellants had been excluded from the Pay Revision of the State  Government,as governed by the UGC Scheme, they had been  placed  in  a  disadvantageousposition.
31.   Appearing  for  the  State  of  Kerala,  Ms.  Bina  Madhavan,  learnedAdvocate, contended that under Article 309 of the  Constitution,  the  StateGovernment is empowered to frame its own Rules and Regulations in regard  toservice conditions of its employees.  Furthermore, Section 2 of  the  KeralaPublic Service Commission Act, 1968, empowers the State Government  to  makeRules either prospectively or retrospectively to  regulate  the  recruitmentand conditions of service for persons appointed to the Public  Services  andposts in connection with the affairs of the State of Kerala.   Ms.  Madhavansubmitted that under the Kerala Service Rules, 1958, enacted  by  the  StateGovernment under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the age  ofretirement  of  teachers  in  colleges  has  been  fixed  to  be  55  years.Subsequently, however, by G.O.P. No.170/12/Fin. dated 22.3.2012, the age  ofcompulsory  retirement  was  enhanced  to  56   years   and   the   age   ofsuperannuation has been enhanced to  60  years.   Ms.  Madhavan  urged  thathaving regard to the UGC Regulations dated 30.6.2010, a decision  was  takento revise the scales of pay and other service conditions, including the  ageof superannuation in Central Universities and other institutions  maintainedand funded by the University Grants Commission, strictly in accordance  withthe decision of the Central Government.  However, the revised scales of  payand age of superannuation, as provided  under  paragraph  2.1.10  and  underparagraph 2.3.1, will also be extended to Universities, colleges  and  otherhigher educational institutions  coming  under  the  purview  of  the  Statelegislature  and  maintained  by  the  State  Governments,  subject  to  theimplementation of the Scheme as a  composite  one  as  contemplated  in  theRegulations.
32.   Ms. Madhavan contended that the State Governments were not  under  anycompulsion to adopt the UGC Scheme, but could do so if they wanted to.   Ms.Madhavan  emphasized  that  neither  the  pay  scales   nor   the   age   ofsuperannuation  stood  revived  automatically,  without  the  Scheme   beingaccepted by the State Government.  Ms. Madhavan also urged that  Section  26of  the  University  Grants  Commission  Act,  1956,  which   empowers   theCommission to make Regulations, does not authorize the  Commission  to  makeRegulations in regard  to  service  conditions  of  teaching  staff  in  theUniversities,  including  the  age  of  retirement.   According  to  learnedcounsel, the role of the  UGC  is  only  to  prescribe  academic  standards,qualifications required for the teaching staff,  facilities  required  in  ahigher education institutions, etc. Hence, it can  in  no  circumstances  becontended that the rule making power  of  the  Commission  empowered  it  toprescribe conditions of service in relation to State  Government  employees,which is the prerogative of the State Government.
33.  Ms. Madhavan also  urged  that  in  its  affidavit  filed  in  SLP  (C)No.10783 of 2011, the Commission had clearly stated that it  would  be  opento the State Government or other competent authority to adopt  the  decisionor to take any decision as it  considered  appropriate  in  respect  of  thesuperannuation  of  the  teachers  in   higher   and   technical   educationinstitutions under their purview,  with  the  approval  of  the  appropriatecompetent authority.  As a result,  there  was  no  repugnancy  between  theRegulations framed by the Commission and  the  Rules  framed  by  the  StateGovernment.  Referring to Section 20 of the UGC Act, Ms. Madhavan  contendedthat the same provided that the Commission, in discharge  of  its  functionsunder the Act, shall be guided by such directions  on  questions  of  policyrelating to national services,  as  may  be  given  to  it  by  the  CentralGovernment and if any dispute arose between the Central Government  and  theCommission as to whether a question is or not a question of policy  relatingto national policy, the decision of the Central Government shall  be  final.Ms. Madhavan also urged that the Central Government had by its letter  dated14th August, 2012, clarified the position and had made  it  clear  that  thequestion of enhancement of the age of retirement is exclusively  within  thedomain of the policy-making powers of the State  Governments  and  that  thecondition of enhancement of the  age  of  superannuation  to  65  years,  asmentioned in the Ministry’s letter  dated  31.12.2008,  may  be  treated  aswithdrawn for the purpose of seeking reimbursement of the Central  share  ofarrears to be paid to the State University and College  teachers.  Accordingto Ms. Madhavan, the  Central  Government  had  itself  clarified  that  theScheme is not a composite one and the word ‘composite’  is  with  regard  tofinancial  assistance  provided  by  the  Central  Government  and  was  notconnected with the  age  of  superannuation  which  was  incidental  to  theScheme.
34.   The other learned counsel appearing  for  the  different  Universitiesand educational institutions generally adopted Mr. Venugopal’s  submissions,but while doing so, added one or two points of their own.
35.   Mr.  S.R.  Singh,  learned  Senior  Advocate,  who  appeared  for  theAppellants in Civil  Appeal  arising  out  of  SLP  (C)  No.16523  of  2011,reiterated Mr. Venugopal’s submissions relating  to  Entry  66  List  I  andEntry 25 in List III and urged that the powers under Entry 66  List  I  werevested in the Central Government and  could  not  be  sub-delegated  to  theStates under Entry 25 in List III, which, in any event, was not  permissiblein law.  Mr. Singh contended that the same would be evident on a reading  ofSection 12(j)  and  Section  27  of  the  UGC  Act,  1956,  which  made  theCommission the repository of  powers  for  advancing  the  cause  of  highereducation in India.
36.    Mr. S. Chandra  Shekhar,  learned  Advocate,  who  appeared  for  theUniversity in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.16523 of 2011 and  otherbatch matters, urged that the University Statutes provided 62 years  as  theage of superannuation and there was no right  available  to  the  Appellantswhich could be enforced by a writ of mandamus.   Mr.  Chandra  Shekhar  alsosubmitted  that  the  Commission  had  no  power  to  enhance  the  age   ofsuperannuation as a condition of service.
37.     Mr.  P.S.  Patwalia,  learned  Senior  Advocate,  who  appeared   inSLP(C)Nos.9198-9221/2011 and other matters relating to the State  of  Punjaband the Union  Territory  of  Chandigarh,  while  adopting  Mr.  Venugopal’ssubmissions regarding the binding nature  of  the  UGC  Regulations,  reliedupon the Constitution Bench decision of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Dr.Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. [(1999)  7  SCC  120],  wherein  it  wasobserved that when there was  an  existing  Central  legislation,  the  samewould be binding in the absence of any  other  legislation  by  the  States.Mr. Patwalia also urged that the Scheme was a composite scheme and ought  tohave been accepted in its totality and  despite  the  fact  that  the  StateGovernment had accepted the grant of 80% of the expenses, which was part  ofthe composite scheme, it ought to have also accepted the other part  of  theScheme relating to enhancement of the  age  of  teachers  in  the  differentUniversities in Punjab, from 62 to 65 years.  By not  doing  so,  the  Statehad caused severe prejudice to the teachers who would  have  otherwise  beenentitled to retire at the age of 65 years and not 62  years.   Mr.  Patwaliasubmitted a copy of the Report of the Task Force  on  Faculty  Shortage  andDesign of Performance Appraisal System published by the  Ministry  of  HumanResource Development, Government of India, in July, 2011,  and  pointed  outthat generally across the country on an average about 35% of  the  posts  ofteachers in the different  Universities  and  Colleges  were  lying  vacant,which was  one  of  the  reasons  for  the  deterioration  of  standards  ofeducation  across  the  board.   Mr.  Patwalia  urged  that  the   aforesaidvacancies would indicate that there was an urgent need  for  appointment  ofteachers  in  the  different  schools  and  colleges  across  the   country,including the State of Punjab.
38.    The same sentiments were expressed by  Dr.  Aman  Hingorani,  learnedAdvocate appearing in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)  No.7392  of  2011.Dr. Hingorani reiterated  Mr.  Patwalia’s  submissions  that  the  compositescheme as offered by the University Grants Commission could not be split  intwo  by  the  States,  and  independent  of  the  control  of  the   CentralGovernment, the College in question has to abide by the UGC  Regulations  asthe same was funded by the Commission. Dr. Hingorani  also  urged  that  theAppellant, Susan Anand, was made to retire at the age of 60  while  the  UGCNotification provided that the age of  superannuation  would  be  62  years.Dr. Hingorani urged that as was held by this Court in Pavai Ammal  VaiyapuriEducation Trust Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu [(1994) 6 SCC 259],  since  theinstitution accepted the UGC Regulations,  it  came  under  its  discipline,which fact had not been taken into consideration in  B. Bharat Kumar &  Ors.Vs Osmania University & Ors. [(2007) 11 SCC 58].  Dr. Hingorani  also  urgedthat though  the  Appellant’s  SLP  was  dismissed  and  the  Appellant  hadattained the age of superannuation, under the orders of the High Court,  shewas allowed to rejoin her duties in the college. It was submitted  that  hercase was required to be treated separately from the  others  on  account  ofthe special facts involved and that having continued in  service  by  virtueof the Court’s orders, she was entitled to the benefits of  any  order  thatmay be passed in favour of enhancement of the age of superannuation from  62to 65 years.
39.   Appearing for  the  State  of  Haryana,  Dr.  Monika  Gosain,  learnedAdvocate, restated what had been stated by the other  learned  counsel  thatthe State of Haryana was not bound by the UGC scheme as it had not  acceptedthe  “composite  scheme”  of  the  Commission.  Supplementing  Dr.  Gosain’ssubmissions, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate, appearing  for  theState of Punjab, submitted that the letter from the Government of  India  toall the States made it clear that unless the composite scheme as offered  bythe UGC was accepted, the payment of money under the  Scheme  would  not  beforthcoming.  It was, however, submitted that in some cases, the  Governmentof Haryana had voluntarily enhanced the age of superannuation  to  65  yearsand notified to the colleges recognized under Section 2(f).
40.   As far as the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.1631  of  2012  andfour  connected  matters  are  concerned,  Mr.  C.S.N.  Mohan  Rao,  learnedAdvocate, appearing for the Appellants, adopted the submissions made by  Mr.K.K. Venugopal and reiterated the position that despite having accepted  thecomposite package, the State had not accepted the enhancement  of  age  from62 to 65 years, causing  severe  prejudice  to  the  Appellants  and  otherssimilarly situated.
41.   Similarly, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Advocate,  appearing  for  theAppellants in Civil Appeals arising out of  SLP(C)  Nos.6915-6923  of  2012,adopted Mr. Venugopal’s submissions and also relied on the decision  in  thecase of B. Bharat Kumar (supra). Ms. Bhati submitted that on behalf  of  theState of Rajasthan a letter had been written to the  Registrar  of  all  theUniversities in the State of  Rajasthan,  indicating  that  considering  thehuge problem of unemployment of youth in the State, the  State  had  decidednot to increase the age of superannuation of teachers beyond 60 years.   Ms.Bhati  referred  to  the  Report  of  the  Chaddha  Committee,  wherein  theaforesaid stand had been refuted and the  said  Committee  recommended  thatthe age of superannuation of teachers should be 65 years on a uniform  basisthroughout the country, whether working in a State or Central University  orCollege. Learned counsel urged that the benefits which  had  been  conferredby  the  UGC  Regulations,  could  not  be  taken  away  by   a   subsequentlegislation.  In the other cases relating to the  State  of  Rajasthan,  thePetitioner adopted not only Mr.  Venugopal’s  submissions,  but  also  thosemade by Ms. Bhati.
42.   Learned counsel appearing in  Civil  Appeals  arising  out  of  SLP(C)Nos.18218-18226 of 2012 and 21396 of 2012  from  Odisha,  also  adopted  thesubmissions made by Mr. K.K. Venugopal and submitted  that  the  UGC  schemehaving been conceived under Entry 66, List I of the Seventh Schedule to  theConstitution, would have an overriding effect over the State legislation.
43.   Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Senior  Advocate,  who  appeared  for  theState of Uttrakhand, submitted that  the  conditions  of  service  in  Stateuniversities could not be controlled by  the  University  Grants  Commissionand even on receipt of 80% of the expenses to be incurred  by  the  Collegesthe State’s powers under the statutes  were  not  taken  away.   Mr.  DineshDwivedi submitted in detail with regard to the  ramifications  of  Entry  66List I as also Entry 11 of List II prior  to  the  42nd  Amendment  and  itssubstitution by way of Entry 25 in List III.  The  ultimate  result  of  Mr.Dwivedi’s submission is that the statute does not use  two  different  wordsto denote the same thing.  Besides the language in the Constitution  has  tobe understood in a common sense way and in common parlance, as was  observedin the case of Synthetic and Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. &  Ors.[(1990) 1 SCC 109].  Learned counsel also  submitted  that  in  the  presentcase,  when  the  dominant  Legislature  has  legislated,   any   incidentalencroachment has to give way.  Moreover, no incidental or  ancillary  powerscould be read into Entry 66 as Entry 32 was  already  occupying  the  filed.Mr. Dwivedi submitted that the 2000 Regulations framed by the UGC  were  notapplicable to  the  Pant  Nagar  University,  since  being  an  agriculturalinstitution, the standards and norms of the Indian Council  of  AgriculturalResearch would apply.  Mr. Dwivedi lastly contended that in  regard  to  theprovisions of Secions 12, 14, 25 and 26 of the UGC Act, the said  provisionscould not be read so widely as to enable the Commission to ride  rough  shodover the State laws.  Mr. Dwivedi submitted that the regulations, in so  faras  they  seek  to  prescribe  conditions  of  service,  including  age   ofretirement, are illegal and beyond the legislative powers of  the  Union  orthe Commission, in the event they relate to the teachers and  staff  of  theState university and institutions.  The 2010 Regulations as  framed  by  theUGC could not, therefore, be enforced on unwilling States  in  view  of  thefederal structure of our Constitution.

44.   Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counselm  who  appeared  for  theBabajan Badesab Nandyal and others, the Appellants in Civil Appeals  arisingout of SLP(C) Nos.32748-762 of 2011, submitted  that  the    impugned  orderwas contrary to the law as laid down by this Court in the case of  AnnamalaiUniversity Vs. Secretary to  Govt.  Information  and  Tourism  Department  &Ors.[(2009) 4 SCC 590] and the University  of  Delhi  Vs.  Raj  Singh  [1994Supp. 3 SCC 516], in which this Court had held that the  provisions  of  theUGC Act were binding on all the Universities and the Regulations  framed  bythe UGC in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and  (h)  of  sub-section  (1)  ofSection 26 which were of wide amplitude and were mandatory  in  nature.   Healso urged that the Division Bench of the High Court had  failed  to  noticethat the Government of India letter dated 31.12.2008 had  been  included  as’Appendix-I’ to the UGC Regulations, 2010, which made  the  Scheme  providedtherein as statutory and binding.  It was also urged  that  the  High  Courthad not really considered the provisions of Section 26(g) of the  above  Actwhich empowered the Commission to regulate the maintenance of standards  andthe coordination of work or facilities  in  Universities.   Learned  counselsubmitted  that  all  factors  relevant  for  the  purpose  of   nourishing,sustaining and enhancing the quality of human resource have been duly  takennote of by the Commission.  Mr. Venkataramani submitted  that  the  questionof fixing the date of retirement of a teacher  were  restricted  within  theframework of University  legislation,  since  the  age  of  retirement   wasintrinsically related to establishment and realization  of  higher  standardand quality of imparting eduction and could not  be  confined  to  parochialaspirations.  Mr. Venkataramani submitted that the  UGC  Regulations,  2010,are binding on the State Governments and the  Universities  to  enhance  theage of superannuation of teachers to 65 years.  Relying on the  decision  ofthis Court in the  Annamalai  University  case  (supra),  Mr.  Venkataramaniurged that the provisions of the UGC Act were binding on  all  Universities,whether  conventional  or  open.   It’s  powers  are  very  broad  and   theRegulations framed by it under Section 26 were of wide  amplitude  and  evenas subordinate legislation they became part  of  the  UGC  Act  having  beenvalidly made.  Learned counsel also referred to the decision of  this  Courtin Prem Chand Jain Vs. R.K. Chhabra [(1984) 2 SCC 302], wherein  this  Courtheld that it was  well  settled  that  entries  incorporated  in  the  Listscovered by Schedule Seven are not powers  of  legislation,  but  “field”  oflegislation.

45.   In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.36126  of  2011,  Mr.  JagjitSingh Chhabra, learned Advocate appearing for the State of Punjab,  referredto the letter dated 23.3.2007 written on behalf of the Government  of  Indiato the Commission regarding enhancement of the age of the teachers  from  62to 65 years and urged that the said Scheme was voluntary and not binding  onthe State and that when a sufficient number of teachers were  available,  itwould be counterproductive to insist that the State should be  compelled  toaccept the UGC’s option in its totality when the same has been left  to  thediscretion of the State by the Regulations themselves.   Mr.  Chhabra  urgedthat the conditions of service  of  teachers  in  a  State  were  completelywithin the jurisdiction of the State and  such  jurisdiction  could  not  beoverridden by the UGC Regulations, without the consent of the State.

46.   In reply to the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners and  theAppellants in these cases, Mr.  Rakesh  Dwivedi,  learned  Senior  Advocate,appearing for the UGC, submitted  that  after  the  letter  written  by  theCentral  Government  on  27.7.1998,  informing  the  States  regarding   therevision of pay scales and the provision  of  financial  assistance  to  theextent of 80% of the additional  expenditure  for  the  period  1.1.1996  to31.3.2000, whereafter the entire liability would have to be  taken  over  bythe State Governments, it was upto the State Governments  to  take  recourseto the scheme as framed.  By another letter dated  27.7.1998,  the  UGC  wasinformed that the Central Government had revised the pay scales of  teachersin the Central Universities on the recommendations of UGC  that  the  schemewas of a composite nature and all the conditions of the  scheme  would  haveto be fulfilled if the States were  to  avail  of  the  offer  of  financialassistance to the extent of  80%  of  the  additional  expenditure  for  theperiod indicated hereinabove.  However, although, the State  of  Kerala  hadissued an order dated 21.12.1999,  accepting  the  revised  pay  scales,  itcontinued to adopt the existing Rules of the State Government,  wherein  theage of retirement remained 55 years. Mr. Dwivedi reiterated  that  followingthe  recommendations  of  the  5th  Central  Pay  Commission,  the   CentralGovernment  had,  by  its  order  dated  23.3.2007,  revised  the   age   ofsuperannuation of teachers to 65 years and even reemployment  was  permittedupto the age of 70 years.  The only catch was that such change  would  applyto centrally-funded higher and  technical  educational  institutions  comingunder the purview of the Ministry of  Human  Resource  Development  and  theNotification would be issued by the Commission.
47.   While reiterating the submissions made on behalf  of  the  Petitionersrelating to the UGC Regulations,  2010  and  Clause  2.1  of  the  Annexuresthereto, Mr. Dwivedi urged that the provisions of the UGC Act,  particularlySection 12 thereof, are not confined to coordination  and  determination  ofstandards in institutions for higher education and  research  but  that  thepowers vested in the Commission contemplated a larger role in regard to  thepromotion  of  university  education.   It  was  further  urged   that   theCommission was empowered to give grants,  as  it  might  deem  necessary  orappropriate, for the development of Universities and  could  also  recommendmeasures necessary for their improvement.  Mr. Dwivedi  contended  that  theUGC Act is not entirely confined to Entry  66,  List  I,  but  it  was  alsoentitled to act under Entry  25  of  the  Concurrent  List  of  the  SeventhSchedule to the Constitution.  Mr. Dwivedi urged that since  Parliament  wascompetent to legislate both in terms of Entry 66, List I and Entry 25,  ListIII, it could invoke both the fields of legislation.  Mr. Dwivedi  submittedthat a competent legislature could draw sustenance from more than one  entrywhile legislating.  However, the aforesaid question was not required  to  begone into since the Commission had made an offer in the  Scheme,  which  wasleft to the State to adopt or not to adopt.  Mr. Dwivedi  further  submittedthat with regard to the Concurrent field, there was no compulsion either  onthe  Parliament  or  the  authority  created  under  Central   Statutes   toexhaustively legislate or to exercise the enabling power with regard to  theConcurrent field. It would be open  to  the  Parliament  or  the  Commissioneither to enforce a particular scheme in the State  or  leave  it  open  forthem to adopt the scheme through their laws and executive  orders.  In  suchcases, the State Governments and State Legislatures exercise plenary  powersto decide whether the  Scheme  was  to  be  adopted  or  not.   Mr.  Dwivedisubmitted that it is also settled law that  unless  the  enabling  power  iscompletely expanded, the legislative field in the  Concurrent  List  remainsavailable to the States.
48.   Mr. Dwivedi further urged that  different  legislations  by  differentStates are inherent  in  a  federal  exercise  of  power.   The  differencesarising as a result of federal distribution of  power  by  the  Constitutionand exercise of  such  power  by  States,  cannot  be  a  ground  to  allegediscrimination.  As was held in S.R. Bommai Vs. Union  of  India  [(1994)  3SCC 1], federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution.  In  the  presentcase, the UGC Act and the Regulations of 2010 and the Scheme of the  CentralGovernment have been made applicable to all the States uniformly.  In  fact,no age of retirement has also  been  fixed  by  the  Commission.   Even  forCentral Universities, the pay  scales  have  been  revised  by  the  CentralGovernment and the age of superannuation has been revised  to  65  years  bythe  said  Government.   The  Scheme  was  also  finalized  by  the  CentralGovernment and it was also the decision of the Central Government  that  theState should take their own decisions as to whether the Scheme  prepared  byit should be adopted.  Mr. Dwivedi reiterated that the  UGC  Regulations  of2010 have notified the Scheme of the Central  Government  and  it  has  beenleft to the discretion of the State Governments to adopt  or  not  to  adoptthe same for its Universities, colleges and other  institutions.   The  onlychallenge which had occurred is the order of the  Central  Government,  videits letter dated 14.8.2012, in its Ministry of Human  Resource  Development,which delinked the financial assistance from the requirement  to  adopt  theCentral Scheme.  The Central Government took a decision that the  discretionof the State Government should not be  fettered  by  the  extension  of  thefinancial incentive.  Accordingly,  any  difference  which  might  arise  onaccount of any decision of the State Government would be on account  of  thefederal scheme of the Constitution  and  not  on  account  of  any  decisioneither of the Central Government or the Commission.
49.   Mr. Dwivedi submitted that the cases relied upon  by  the  Petitionersand Appellants were all based on geographical discrimination, which  had  nobearing with the facts of these cases  and  neither  the  UGC  Act  nor  theRegulations of 2010, nor the Scheme of the Central Government, suffers  fromany such infirmity.  In this regard, Mr. Dwivedi  also  placed  reliance  onthe decision of this Court in T.P. George Vs State of Kerala [1992 Supp  (3)SCC 191] and in the All India  Sainik  Schools  Employees’  Association  Vs.Defence Minister-cum-Chairman Board of Governors,  Sainik  Schools  Society,New Delhi [1989 Supp 1 SCC 205].  Learned counsel submitted that each  Statehas its own sovereign plenary power with respect to its  territory  and  thelaws of one State could not be held to be discriminatory with  reference  tolaws of another State.  In this regard, Mr. Dwivedi referred to  and  reliedupon the decision of this Court in Javed Vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 8  SCC369], where the  said  principle  was  considered  and  the  application  ofArticle 14 of the Constitution was negated.
50.   Mr. Dwivedi concluded on the note  that  the  age  of  retirement  hasvaried from State  to  State  in  respect  of  public  employment  in  Stateservices and this Court has always upheld the power of the State to fix  theage of superannuation in the light of conditions  prevalent  in  the  Statesand the  provision  of  jobs  to  youth  has  been  upheld  to  be  a  validconsideration, as in the State of Kerala.

51.   On behalf of Govind Ballabh  Pant  University  in  SLP(C)  No.8153  of2012, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Advocate,  submitted  that  Section28(r) of the UGC Act permits the University to frame Rules  with  regard  toservice conditions of its staff, including the Rules for retirement.   Apartfrom the above, it was also pointed out that the grants which  are  receivedby the University are not from the UGC,  but  from  the  Indian  Council  ofAgricultural Research (ICAR).

52.    Lastly, coming to the submissions made on  behalf  of  the  State  ofRajasthan and the State of U.P., on behalf of both the States it was  soughtto be urged that the UGC Regulations could not  control  the  power  of  theState Governments and/or the service conditions  of  its  employees  as  thesame are to be exclusively decided by the Union or the  State,  as  providedin Article 309 of the Constitution.  It was submitted that it had also  beenheld in the Osmania University case (supra) that the fixation of the age  ofsuperannuation by the State Government is well within its  jurisdiction  andneither the Scheme of the Central Government nor the  UGC  Regulations  haveany binding effect.

53.   Though, at first blush, the scope of the appeals seemed to be  limitedand confined to the question as to whether the  Regulations  framed  by  theUniversity Grants Commission under  Section  26  of  the  University  GrantsCommission Act, 1956, were binding on the States and State-funded and  otherUniversities and colleges being run  therein,  as  the  hearing  progressed,several other ancillary issues also came to be raised.

54.   As has been indicated hereinbefore,  the  Central  Government  enactedthe UGC Act in 1956 to coordinate and determine  standards  in  universitiesand towards that end,  to  establish  a  University  Grants  Commission  fortaking all steps, as  it  thought  fit,  for  the  promotion  of  universityeducation and for determination and maintenance  of  standards  of  teachingand research in  universities.   On  24th  December,  1998,  the  Commissionissued a Notification relating to revision of pay scales and  other  serviceconditions.   Thereafter,  after  the  expressions  of  a  series  of  viewsregarding the enhancement of the age of superannuation from  60  to  62  andfrom 62 to 65 years, the Central Government  in  its  Department  of  HigherEducation, wrote to the Secretary, UGC, on 31st December, 2008, with  regardto a scheme for revision of pay-scales  of  teachers  and  other  equivalentcadres  in  all  the  Central   universities   and   Colleges   and   DeemedUniversities,  following  the  revision  of  pay  scales  of   the   CentralGovernment  employees  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Sixth  Central  PayCommission.

55.   One of the common submissions made on behalf of  the  Respondents  waswhether the aforesaid scheme would automatically apply  to  centrally-fundedinstitutions, to State universities and educational  institutions  and  alsoprivate institutions at the State level, on account of the stipulation  thatthe scheme would  have  to  be  accepted  in  its  totality.   As  indicatedhereinbefore in this judgment, the purport of the scheme was to enhance  thepay of the teachers and other connected staff in the State universities  andeducational institutions and also to increase their  age  of  superannuationfrom 62 to 65 years.  The scheme provides that if it  was  accepted  by  theconcerned State, the UGC would bear 80% of the expenses on account  of  suchenhancement in the pay structure and the remaining  20%  would  have  to  beborne by the State.  This would  be  for  the  period  commencing  from  1stJanuary, 2006, till 31st March, 2010, after which the  entire  liability  onaccount of revision of pay-scales would have to be taken over by  the  StateGovernment.  Furthermore, financial assistance from the  Central  Governmentwould be restricted to revision of  pay-scales  in  respect  of  only  thoseposts which were in existence and had been filled  up  as  on  1st  January,2006.  While most of the States were willing to adopt the  scheme,  for  thepurpose of receiving 80% of the salary of the teachers and other staff  fromthe UGC which would reduce their liability to 20% only, they were  unwillingto accept  the  scheme  in  its  composite  form  which  not  only  entailedacceptance of the increase in the retirement age from 62 to  65  years,  butalso shifted the total liability in regard  to  the  increase  in  the  pay-scales to the States, after 1st April, 2010.

56.   Another anxiety which is special to certain States, such as the  Stateof Uttar Pradesh and Kerala, has also come to light during the hearing.   Inboth the States,  the  problem  is  one  of  surplus-age  and  providing  anopportunity for others to enter into service.  On behalf  of  the  State  ofKerala, it had been  urged  that  there  was  a  large  number  of  educatedunemployed youth,  who  are  waiting  to  be  appointed,  but  by  retainingteachers  beyond  the  age  of  62  years,  they  were  being  denied   suchopportunity.  As far as the State of U.P. is concerned, it  is  one  of  jobexpectancy, similar to that prevailing in Kerala.  The State Governments  ofthe said two States were, therefore, opposed to  the  adoption  of  the  UGCscheme, although, the same has not been made compulsorily applicable to  theuniversities, colleges and other  institutions  under  the  control  of  theState authorities.

57.   To some extent there is an air of redundancy in the  prayers  made  onbehalf  of  the  Respondents  in  the   submissions   made   regarding   theapplicability of the scheme to the State and its universities, colleges  andother educational institutions.  The elaborate arguments advanced in  regardto the powers of the UGC to frame such  Regulations  and/or  to  direct  theincrease in the age  of  teachers  from  62  to  65  years  as  a  conditionprecedent for receiving aid from the UGC, appears to have  little  relevanceto the actual issue  involved  in  these  cases.   That  the  Commission  isempowered to frame Regulations under Section 26 of the UGC  Act,  1956,  forthe  promotion  and  coordination  of  university  education  and  for   thedetermination and maintenance of  standards  of  teaching,  examination  andresearch, cannot  be  denied.   The  question  that  assumes  importance  iswhether in the process of framing such  Regulations,  the  Commission  couldalter the service conditions of the employees which were entirely under  thecontrol of the States in regard to State  institutions.   The  authority  ofthe Commission to frame Regulations with regard to  the  service  conditionsof teachers in the centrally- funded  educational  institutions  is  equallywell established.  As has been very rightly done in the  instant  case,  theacceptance of the scheme  in  its  composite  form  has  been  left  to  thediscretion of the State Governments.  The concern of the  State  Governmentsand  their  authorities  that  the  UGC  has  no  authority  to  impose  anyconditions  with  regard  to  its  educational   institutions   is   clearlyunfounded.  There is no doubt that the Regulations framed by the UGC  relateto Entry 66 List I of the  Constitution  in  the  Seventh  Schedule  to  theConstitution, but it does not empower the Commission to  alter  any  of  theterms and conditions of the enactments by the States under  Article  309  ofthe Constitution.  Under Entry 25 of List III,  the  State  is  entitled  toenact its own laws with regard to the service  conditions  of  the  teachersand other staff of the universities and colleges within the  State  and  thesame will have effect unless they are repugnant to any central  legislation.

58.   However, in the  instant  case,  the  said  questions  do  not  arise,inasmuch as, as mentioned hereinabove, the acceptance of the scheme  in  itscomposite  form  was  made  discretionary  and,  therefore,  there  was   nocompulsion on the State and  its  authorities  to  adopt  the  scheme.   Theproblem lies in the desire of the State and its Authorities  to  obtain  thebenefit of 80% of the salaries of the teachers and  other  staff  under  thescheme, without increasing the age of retirement from 62  to  65  years,  orthe subsequent condition regarding the taking over of the  scheme  with  itsfinancial implications from 1st April, 2010.

59.   As far as the States of Kerala  and  U.P.  are  concerned,  they  havetheir own problems which are localised and  stand  on  a  different  footingfrom the other States, none of whom who appear to  have  the  same  problem.Education now being a List III subject, the State Government is  at  libertyto frame its own laws relating  to  education  in  the  State  and  is  not,therefore, bound to accept or follow the Regulations framed by the UGC.   Itis only natural that if they wish to adopt the  Regulations  framed  by  theCommission under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, the States  will  have  toabide by the conditions as laid down by the Commission.

60.   That leaves us with the question which is  special  to  the  State  ofBihar, i.e., the effect of Section 67(a) introduced  into  the  Bihar  StateUniversities Act, 1976, by the Bihar  State  Universities  (Amendment)  Act,2006, and the corresponding amendments made in  the  Patna  University  Act,1976.  Section 67(a)  has  been  extracted  hereinbefore  in  Paragraph  13.While, on the one hand, it has been mentioned that notwithstanding  anythingto the contrary  contained  in  any  Act,  Rules,  Statutes,  Regulation  orOrdinance, the date of retirement of a teaching employee of  the  universityor of a college shall be the date on which he attains the age of  62  years,the confusion is created by the next sentence which  further  provides  thatthe date of retirement of a teaching employee would be the same which  wouldbe decided by the UGC.  It has been urged that the  said  provision  clearlycontemplates that in the event of  an  alteration  resulting  in  an  upwardrevision of the age of superannuation, the same  would  automatically  applyto all such teachers and staff, without any further decision  of  the  Stateand its authorities in that regard.  In other words, what  has  been  soughtto be urged  is  that  when  in  regard  to  Centrally-funded  universities,colleges and educational institutions, the age of  superannuation  has  beenincreased to 65 years by the University Grants Commission, the same  has  touniformly apply to all universities and  colleges  throughout  the  country,without any discrimination.  The  same  did  not  necessitate  any  separatedecision to be  taken  by  the  State  and  its  authorities  regarding  theapplicability of the decision taken by the University Grants Commission.

61.   The said submission, in our view, is not acceptable on account of  thefact  that  in  the  first  paragraph  of  the  said  Section  it  has  beencategorically stated that the age of superannuation would be 62 years.   Thesecond paragraph of the said section makes it even more  clearer,  since  itreiterates that the date of  retirement  of  non-teaching  employees,  otherthan the inferior servants, shall be the date on which he  attains  the  ageof 62 years.  The first proviso also indicates that  the  university  shall,in no case, extend the period of service of any  of  the  teaching  or  non-teaching employee after  he  attains  the  age  of  62  years.   The  secondproviso, however,  states  that  even  after  retirement,  teachers  may  bereappointed in appropriate cases up to the age of 65  years  in  the  mannerlaid down in the Statutes  made  in  this  behalf  in  accordance  with  theguidelines of the Commission.

62.   As against the above, certain writ petitions have been  filed  in  thePatna High Court  which rejected  the  contention  of  the  Petitioners  anddismissed the writ petitions on the  ground  that  the  Commission  had  nottaken any conscious decision with regard to teachers and staff,  except  forthose which were  Centrally-funded.  Subsequently,  however,  since  in  its452nd meeting the Commission took a conscious decision and recommended  thatthe Report of the Pay Review Committee recommending the enhancement  of  ageof superannuation from 62 to 65 years  be  made  applicable  throughout  thecountry,   fresh  writ  petitions  were  filed  in  the  Patna  High  Court,including CWJC No.2330  of  2009,  filed  by  the  Appellants  herein.   Thelearned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions upon holding that  once  theCommission had recommended that the age of superannuation be accepted as  65years, the State Governments had no discretion but to  enhance  the  age  ofsuperannuation in line with the  recommendations  made  by  the  Commission.The Division Bench subsequently reversed the finding of the  learned  SingleJudge, resulting in these Special Leave Petitions (now Appeals).

63.   Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar, Mr. Gopal Singh,  hadin his submissions reiterated the views of the High  Court,  i.e.,  that  onmere communication, the revision of the pay of teachers and increase in  theage of superannuation would not automatically become effective and that,  inany event, the right to alter the terms and conditions  of  service  of  theState universities  and  colleges  were  within  the  domain  of  the  StateGovernment and till such time as it decided to  adopt  the  same,  the  samewould have no application  to  the  teachers  and  staff  of  the  differenteducational institutions in the State.

64.   We are inclined to agree with such submission mainly  because  of  thefact  that  in  the  amended  provisions  of  Section  67(a)  it  has   beencategorically  stated  that  the  age  of  superannuation  of   non-teachingemployees would be 62 years and, in no case, should the  period  of  serviceof such non-teaching employees be extended beyond 62  years.   A  differencehad been made in regard to the teaching  faculty  whose  services  could  beextended up to 65 years in the manner laid down in the University  Statutes. There is no ambiguity that  the  final  decision  to  enhance  the  age  ofsuperannuation of teachers within a particular State would be  that  of  theState itself.  The right of the Commission to frame Regulations  having  theforce of law is admitted.  However, the State Governments are also  entitledto legislate with matters relating to education under Entry 25 of List  III. So long as the State legislation did not encroach upon the jurisdiction  ofParliament, the State legislation would  obviously  have  primacy  over  anyother law.  If there was any legislation enacted by the  Central  Governmentunder Entry 25 List III, both would have to be treated on a  par  with  eachother.  In the absence of any such legislation  by  the  Central  Governmentunder Entry  25  List  III,  the  Regulation  framed  by  way  of  delegatedlegislation  has  to  yield  to  the  plenary  jurisdiction  of  the   StateGovernment under Entry 25 of List III.

65.   We are then faced with the situation  where  a  composite  scheme  hasbeen framed by the UGC, whereby the Commission agreed to  bear  80%  of  theexpenses incurred by the State if such scheme was to  be  accepted,  subjectto the condition that the remaining 20% of the expense would be met  by  theState and that on and from 1st April, 2010, the State Government would  takeover  the  entire  burden  and  would  also  have  enhanced   the   age   ofsuperannuation of teachers and other staff  from  62  to  65  years.   Therebeing no compulsion to accept and/or adopt the said scheme, the  States  arefree to decide as to whether the scheme would be adopted  by  them  or  not.In our view, there can be no automatic application  of  the  recommendationsmade by the Commission, without any conscious decision being  taken  by  theState in this regard, on account of the  financial  implications  and  otherconsequences attached to such a decision.  The  case  of  those  Petitionerswho have claimed that they should be given the benefit of the scheme  dehorsthe responsibility attached thereto, must, therefore, fail.

66.   However, within this class of institutions there is a  separate  groupwhere the State Governments themselves have taken a decision  to  adopt  thescheme.  In such cases, the consequences  envisaged  in  the  scheme  itselfwould automatically follow.

67.   We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the  impugned  judgmentand order of the Division Bench of the High Court in all  these  matters  inthe light of the various  submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the  respectiveparties.  The several Appeals, Writ  Petitions  and  the  Transferred  Case,which involve the same questions as considered in this batch of  cases,  areall dismissed.  However, the Appeals filed by the State of  Uttarakhand  andCivil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 6724, 13747 and 14676 of  2012  areallowed.  As far as  the  Transfer  Petition  Nos.  1062-1068  OF  2012  areconcerned, the same are allowed and the  Transferred  Cases  are  dismissed.The  Contempt  Petitions  are  disposed  of  by  virtue  of  this  judgment.However, persons who have continued to work on  the  basis  of  the  interimorders passed by this Court or any other Court,  shall  not  be  denied  thebenefit of service during  the  said  period.   The  Appeals  and  Petitionshaving  been  dismissed,  both  the  State  Authorities  and   the   CentralAuthorities will be at liberty to work  out  their  remedies  in  accordancewith law.

68.   Having regard to the nature of  the  facts  involved  in  these  case,parties shall bear their own costs.
……………….CJI.                                                             (ALTAMAS KABIR)

…………………J.                                                     (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

…………………J.                                                            (J. CHELAMESWAR)New DelhiDated: July 17, 2013.


About advocatemmmohan



Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,475 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: