On 3.10.2008, the Pay Review Committee set up by the Commission submitted its Report to the Commission relating to the revision of pay scales of teachers, qualification for appointment, service and working companyditions and promotional avenues of teachers in Universities and companyleges, and at clause 5.4.2, it recommended that the age of superannuation throughout the companyntry should be 65 years, whether in a State or Central University, as also in a companylege or in a University.
The University Grants Commission Act was enacted by Parliament in 1956 inter alia with the object of making provision for the companyrdination and determination of standards in Universities and for that purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission.
On 23rd March, 2007, the Government, in its Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, wrote to the Secretary of the Commission on the question of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years for teaching positions in Centrally funded institutions, in higher and technical education.
Both the Writ Petitions were dismissed by the High Court on the ground that there was numberconscious decision taken by UGC with regard to teachers working in State Universities since the enhancement was companyfined to Centrally funded Universities.
4823 and 5390 of 2008, were filed by some teachers seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years, based upon the aforesaid decision of the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
The said matter was heard along with several other similar Writ Petitions, wherein claims were made by the Petitioners under the amended provisions of the Patna University Act and Bihar State Universities Act.
Under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the UGC Act, the Commission is required to take, in companysultation with the Universities or other companycerned bodies, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and companyrdination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities.
Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions, which were taken up along with the Writ Petitions and Transferred Cases, as they all involve companymon questions of law and fact.
On 6.10.2009, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions and held that the State Government had numberdiscretion as they were statutorily bound by the decision of the Commission to enhance the age of superannuation.
Since the decision of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, as companyveyed in its letter of 23.3.2007, was number being implemented, Writ Petitions, being CWJC Nos.
The companymon thread running through all these various matters is the question as to 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.
117 of 2010, filed by the State of Bihar.
As numberaction was taken even thereafter, the Appellants filed Writ Petition, being CWJC No.
117 of 2010 and other companynected LPAs were filed by the State of Bihar challenging the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge.
18766 18782 were filed by the Appellants herein in June, 2010.
On 18.5.2010, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court allowed LPA No.
In its 452nd meeting, the Commission took a companyscious decision and recommended the Report of the Pay Review Committee for acceptance by the Central Government.
Pursuant to the said decision and recommendation of the Commission, the Ministry of Human Resource Development published a Scheme on 31.12.2008, which has already been referred to hereinbefore.
It is against the said judgment of the Division Bench that SLP C Nos.
Letters Patent Appeal No.
2330 of 2009, before the Patna High Court.
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.
