New Delhi, Jul 30 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a 2023 Calcutta High Court order upholding the West Bengal government’s stance that the retirement age of a teacher cannot be extended as he did not fulfill a 10-year continuous teaching condition in a university in the state.
The court also said classifying employees based on past teaching experience from universities within or outside West Bengal, particularly on the verge of retirement, after having served for decades “lacks nexus and discernible object”.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra said the intent of the February 2021 notification extending the retirement age from 60 to 65 years was not to exclude employees with experience from universities outside West Bengal.
It said the text, context and objective of the notification revealed that its purpose was solely to distinguish between state-aided and private institutions. “Classifying employees based on past teaching experience from universities within or outside West Bengal, particularly at the verge of retirement, after having served for decades lacks nexus and discernible object,” the bench said.
While allowing the appeal filed by the employee challenging the high court’s division bench verdict, the bench said the appellant would be entitled to costs quantified at Rs 50,000.
The apex court said when such decisions were subjected to strict scrutiny in judicial review, they unfortunately expose themselves as parochial, potentially undermining our resolve of fraternity.
The bench said executive decisions like these seem minor or simple errors of perception but have far reaching consequences.
“Constitutional courts must be vigilant and identify such decisions, embedded in the nooks and crannies of public administration and set them aside, for they have the potentiality of triggering similar actions by other states and their instrumentalities,” it said.
Observing that principle of fraternity never asserts itself, the bench said it was the duty of constitutional court to recognise its erosion, “even in the bylanes of public administration and to restore the essential ‘We’ to ensure the unity and integrity of the nation”.
The bench noted the appellant was initially appointed as a member of the teaching staff at Cachar College, Silchar in Assam in January 1991 and under the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005, the college was taken over as a government college.
It said after serving there for 16 years, he applied in response to an advertisement in June 2007 issued by the Burdwan University for a vacancy in the post of Secretary, Faculty Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Science.
The bench said he was selected and after working for some time, was promoted to the post of senior secretary, Faculty Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Science, in January 2012.
It noted after he already rendered over 14 years of service, the West Bengal government issued a memorandum in February 2021 increasing the age of retirement from 60 years to 65 years.
The bench said the memorandum provided that benefit of increased age of retirement was extended only to those who had acquired a minimum of 10 years of continuous teaching experience in any state-aided university or college.
It said after the appellant made a representation to the vice-chancellor of the university claiming benefit of the memorandum, the university informed that he would retire on August 31, 2023 on attaining the age of 60 years as he had no teaching experience in a ‘university or college aided by the State of West Bengal’.
Aggrieved by this, he approached the high court.
A single judge of the high court allowed his plea and held that he was squarely covered by the memorandum and would retire on attaining the age of 65.
Later, the state and the university filed separate appeals challenging the single judge’s order.
The division bench allowed the appeals and set-aside the order of the single judge.
In its verdict, the apex court said the appellant was a regular employee, having joined the university in 2007 and continued in service uninterruptedly till 2021.
“The purpose of the notification is not to exclude those who had acquired the 10 years of teaching experience from universities or colleges outside West Bengal,” the bench said.
It said to insist on past teaching experience of 10 years within the state of West Bengal for extension of service, particularly when the employee had already worked for fourteen years was arbitrary and illegal.
“It is a classic case of a suspect classification intended to sub-serve only parochial interests and nothing more. To insist on such a requirement for extension of date of retirement is totally unjustified,” it said.
The bench said the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of the notification. PTI ABA ZMN
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.