REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5341 OF 2003

Indian Institute of Technology,  ...Appellant(s) Kanpur

- Versus -

Raja Ram Verma & Others ...Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

GANGULY, J.

1. The Respondent No. 1 Shri Raja Ram Verma  

was  appointed  to  the  post  of  Assistant  

Registrar  at  Indian  Institute  of  

Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter I.I.T.) on  

11.11.1983.  As per Statute 13 of I.I.T.,  

the  respondent  was  due  to  retire  on  

31.08.2000  on  attaining  the  age  of  60  

1

years. His case before us is that he should  

have been allowed to continue upto the age  

of 62 years.

2. I.I.T. Kanpur is a body incorporated under  

the  Institutes  of  Technology  Act,  1961  

(hereinafter ‘the Act’). Section 27 of the  

Act provides for framing of first Statutes  

by  the  I.I.T.  Such  statutes  are  to  deal  

with  matters  mentioned  in  Section  26.  

Section  26  (g)  provides  for  framing  of  

statutes relating to terms and conditions  

of service of teachers and other staff of  

the I.I.T. Section 31 of the Act provides  

for the establishment of Council which is a  

central body. Under Section 33 of the Act  

the  general  duty  of  the  Council  is  to  

coordinate the activities of the Institute  

and  under  Section  33(2)(b)  one  of  the  

general  duties  of  the  Council  is  to  lay  

down the policies regarding cadres, method  

2

of recruitment and conditions of service of  

employees  amongst  other  things  of  common  

interest.

3. Statute 11 classifies the employees under  

three  categories.  They  are  (a)  academic,  

(b)  technical  and  (c)  administrative.  

Respondent No. 1 who was appointed as an  

Assistant Registrar falls under the third  

category.

4. Generally, the statute 13 (2) framed under  

the  Act  prescribes  the  age  of  

superannuation  of  a  confirmed  appointee.  

Initially the statute provided for 60 years  

as the age of superannuation for all the  

staff  members.  By  an  amendment  on  

23.06.1989  however,  a  sub-statute  3  was  

added  making  some  changes.  The  said  

amendment runs as follows:

3

“(3)Subject to the provisions of the Act  and the Statutes, all the new appointments  to posts on revised salary scales adopted  with effect from 1st January 1986 under the  Institutie  shall  ordinarily  be  made  on  probation for a period of one year after  which period the appointee, if confirmed,  shall continue to hold office, subject to  the provisions of the Act and the Statutes  as follows: (a) Teaching Staff (faculty and Group ‘D’  

Staff): Till the end of the month in  which he attains the age of 60 years

(b) Group A, B and C staff (non faculty):  Till the end of the month in which he  attains the age of 58 years.

5. This  amendment  did  not  affect  the  

Respondent No. 1 as it was applicable for  

those who were appointed w.e.f. 01.01.1986.

6. Thereafter, by an office order issued by  

the  Registrar’s  office,  I.I.T.  Kanpur,  

dated 14.07.1998, the age of retirement was  

increased from 58 to 60 years with effect  

from 30.05.1998. This was done in respect  

of  members  of  Groups  A,  B  and  C  (non  

faculty) who had been appointed on or after  

23.06.1989. 4

7. On  27.07.1998,  the  Ministry  of  Human  

Resource  Development  addressed  to  the  

Secretary,  University  Grants  Commission,  

and forwarded to the Vice Chancellors of  

all Central Universities, Member Secretary,  

All India Council for Technical Education  

and  Secretary  of  the  Indian  Council  for  

Agricultural  Research,  providing  therein  

that  the  age  of  superannuation  of  

University and College teachers would be 62  

years  with  the  liberty  reserved  to  the  

Universities  and  Colleges  to  re-employ  

superannuated teachers within the existing  

guidelines framed by the U.G.C.  

8. The respondent No.1 claims his entitlement  

to continue till 62 years of age on the  

basis of this communication.

5

9. Another  communication  was  issued  on  31st  

August,  1998  by  the  Department  of  

Education,  Ministry  of  H.R.D.  to  the  

Director  of  the  I.I.T.  with  regard  to  

increase in the age of superannuation of  

academic  staff  including  personnel  of  

Registry, Library and Physical Education.  

Thereupon,  the  appellant  sought  

clarification from the Ministry about the  

term  “Personnel  of  Registry,  Library  and  

Physical Education Staff.”

10. The case of the appellant is that it got a  

telephonic communication from the Ministry  

on  or  about  14th October  1998  that  the  

increase in the age of superannuation from  

60 to 62 years is confined to the case of  

Assistant Registrar level and the officers  

above. Thereupon, the appellant allowed one  

Shri.  S.H.  Bakre,  Assistant  Registrar  to  

continue in service, who was due to retire  

6

on  31st August  1998.  Thereafter,  the  

Chairman of the Board of Governors approved  

the proposal of the Director, wherein it  

was proposed that the staff, whose age of  

retirement was 58 years, would superannuate  

on attaining 60 years and the members of  

the staff whose age of retirement at the  

time  of  appointment  was  60  years,  would  

superannuate  on  attaining  62  years.  

However, the said proposal of the Director  

even though approved by the Chairman, was  

not put up before the Board of Governors  

for ratification, hence no effect was given  

to the same as required under statute 7(4)  

of the first statute.

11. In Statute 7(4) of the statutes of I.I.T.,  

all  orders  of  the  Chairman  have  to  be  

approved  by  the  Board.  The  relevant  

provision  of  Statute  7(4)  is  in  the  

following terms:

7

“7(4) In emergent cases the Chairman may  exercise  the  powers  of  the  Board  and  inform the Board of the action taken by  him for its approval.”

12. It  has  been  urged  on  behalf  of  the  

appellant  that  as  respondent  No.1  was  

admittedly appointed on 11.11.1983, he was  

due  for  superannuation  on  31.12.2000  on  

attaining the age of superannuation of 60  

years in terms of statute 13(2). The exact  

provision  of  Statute  13(2)  in  this  

connection is set out below:

“(2) Subject to the provisions of the Act  and  the  statutes,  all  appointments  to  posts under the Institute shall ordinarily  be made on probation for a period of one  year after which period the appointee, if  confirmed,  shall  continue  to  hold  his  office  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  Act and the Statutes, till the end of the  month in which he attains the age of 60  years.

Provided  that  where  the  Board  considers  that  in  the  interests  of  students and for the purposes of teaching  and  guiding  the  research  scholars  any  member  of  the  academic  staff  should  be  reemployed, it may re-employ such a member  till  the  end  of  the  semester  or  the  academic  session  as  may  be  considered  appropriate in the circumstances of each  case.

8

Provided further that where it becomes  necessary  to  re-employ  any  such  member  beyond the end of the semester or academic  session as the case may be, the Board may  with the previous approval of the visitor,  re-employ  any  such  member  for  a  period  upto three years in the first instance and  upto two years thereafter and in no case  exceeding the end of the academic session  in which he attains the age of 65 years.

Provided also that in no circumstances  such  member  shall  be  reemployed  for  any  purposes other than those of teaching and  guiding the research scholars.”  

13. Then by a communication dated 6.11.1998 the  

Government of India, the second respondent,  

clarified  the  scheme  notified  in  its  

earlier  communication  dated  27.7.1998  to  

the extent that the age of superannuation  

at  62  will  be  applicable  only  to  those  

Registrars, Librarians, Physical Education  

personnel  who  are  treated  at  par  with  

teachers  and  whose  age  of  superannuation  

was 60 years.

14. Thereafter,  the  I.I.T.  council  met  on  

20.2.1999  and  decided  that  the  age  of  

9

superannuation of staff members of I.I.Ts  

(except faculty and scientific/design staff  

in Group A category) would continue to be  

60 years, as in the case of the Central  

Government employees.

15. In  the  meantime,  the  case  of  another  

Assistant  Registrar,  namely  Shri  S.K.  

Gupta, who was to retire on 31.3.1999, came  

up for consideration and the then Director  

of  I.I.T.  sought  clarification  from  the  

Ministry of Human Resource Development. In  

seeking such a clarification, the Director  

was informed by the Secretary, Ministry of  

Human  Resource  Development  that  a  

clarification would be sent shortly. In the  

absence of any clarification, the Director  

decided that till further clarification is  

received from the Ministry, Shri S.K. Gupta  

may continue.

1

16. However,  on  30.3.1999  itself  a  

communication  was  received  from  the  

Ministry  of  Human  Resource  Development  

giving the clarification and in paragraph  

(5)  of  the  said  clarification  it  was  

provided as under:

“Attention of this Ministry has, however,  been drawn to the fact that the position  stated  in  para  4  above  requires  clarification.  Accordingly,  it  is  clarified that the increase in the age of  superannuation  from  60  to  62  years  indicated in this Ministry letter of even  number  dated 31st August,  1998 as  stated  above  would  be  applicable  only  to  those  categories of employees of IITs, IIMs and  IISc who are being treated at par with the  teachers and whose age of superannuation  was 60 years.”

17. On  16.2.2000  a  further  clarification  was  

given  by  the  second  respondent  to  the  

Director of the appellant that the increase  

in the age of superannuation from 60 years  

to  62  years  would  be  applicable  only  to  

those  categories  of  employees  of  I.I.Ts,  

I.I.Ms and I.I.Sc who are being treated at  

1

par  with  the  teachers  and  whose  age  of  

superannuation was 60 years.  

18. In view of the aforesaid clarification by  

the  second  respondent,  a  grievance  was  

raised about alleged discrimination between  

the  members  of  faculty  staff  and  those  

members of staff who are categoried as non-

faculty staff. In the background of such a  

plea  of  discrimination,  the  second  

respondent,  by  its  further  communication  

dated 24.4.2000, clarified that since the  

members of the staff of various I.I.Ts are  

classified  into  3  categories  namely,  i)  

academic  ii)  technical  and  iii)  

administrative  and  others  and  since  

Librarians are falling in the categories of  

the academic staff, their age of retirement  

would be 62 years.  

1

19. Thereafter, the Board of Governors of the  

appellant in its meeting held on 22.5.2000,  

on consideration of the communication dated  

24.4.2000 from the second respondent came  

to the following conclusion:

“The Board was informed of the outcome  of the discussions at the IITs Directors  meeting held on 9th April, 2000. The Board  after a brief discussion decided as under:

1.Those  Assistant  Registrars  who  are  in  service  beyond  60  years  will  retire  on  December  31,  2000.  However,  if  a  person  reaches  62  years  before  that  date,  he  will  retire at the end of the month in  which he completes 62 years.

2.Librarian and Deputy Librarian will  retire  on  completing  62  years,  in  view of MHRD clarification.

3.A decision with respect to Physical  Education Instructors– Class-A will  be  taken  once  a  clarification  is  received from the MHRD.”

20. Thereupon, a memorandum was issued by the  

appellant on 17.7.2000 to the effect that  

the  date  of  superannuation  of  all  the  

Assistant  Registrars,  who  figured  in  the  

said memorandum will be 31st December, 2000.  1

However, Shri S.H. Bakre was not allowed to  

continue since his date of superannuation  

was 31.8.2000.  

21. Being  aggrieved  by  the  said  memorandum  

dated  17.7.2000;  respondent  No.1  filed  a  

writ  petition  before  the  Allahabad  High  

Court.

22. The consistent case of the appellant before  

the High Court was that age of retirement  

of only those employees was enhanced who  

could be treated at par with the teachers.  

In  the  affidavit  filed  by  the  appellant  

before the High Court they have reiterated  

that they are bound by the communication  

from  the  Ministry  of  Human  Resources,  

Government  of  India  dated  30.3.1999  and  

also  one  dated  24.4.2000.   The  relevant  

part of the 30.3.1999 notification has been  

set  out  above  and  the  subsequent  

1

clarification  by  the  Ministry’s  

communication dated 24.4.2000 also relies  

on para 5 of the Ministry’s communication  

dated 30.3.1999. On a combined reading of  

the aforesaid two communications issued by  

the  second  respondent,  it  is  more  than  

clear  that  increase  in  the  age  of  

retirement has been made available only to  

those  categories  of  employees  who  are  

treated at par with the teachers.

23. However,  the  High  Court  on  an  erroneous  

basis allowed the writ petition and quashed  

the order of the appellant dated 17.7.2000.  

It may be mentioned in this connection that  

subsequently  the  Full  Bench  of  the  

Allahabad  High  Court  by  a  judgment  and  

order dated 14.10.2004 disagreed with the  

decision  rendered  by  the  Allahabad  High  

Court in favour of the respondent No.1 and  

held that “Hence in our opinion the age of  

1

retirement  of  an  employee  of  the  Indian  

Institute of Technology is 60 years and not  

62 years vide Section 13(2). We, therefore,  

respectfully disagree with the decision in  

Raja Ram Verma’s case. The judgment in Raja  

Ram  Verma’s  case  (supra)  is  hereby  

overruled”.

24. It may be noted in this connection that an  

affidavit has been filed by the appellant  

before this Court explaining the conditions  

under  which  Mr.  Bakre  was  allowed  to  

continue beyond 60 years.  Since Mr. Bakre  

was an Assistant Registrar and was due to  

retire  on  31.8.1998  the  benefit  of  

increased age was extended to him, pending  

clarification about the age of retirement  

from the second respondent. The issuance of  

clarification was by the second respondent,  

the Central Government. The Board of the  

appellant decided that six of its Assistant  

1

Registrars would have to be superannuated  

based on the office memo dated 16.2.2000  

issued  by  the  Government  of  India  and  

thereupon  the  Board  of  Governors  decided  

that  all  the  six  Assistant  Registrars  

except  Mr.  Bakre  would  be  allowed  to  

continue till 31.12.2000.  Therefore, Mr.  

Bakre was allowed to continue only under  

fortuitous circumstances and in the absence  

of any proper clarifications by the Central  

Government.  

25. This  Court  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  

respondent cannot claim the same right. In  

the case of Mr. Bakre no legal right was  

extended to him. He was allowed to continue  

in the absence of any clarification about  

when retirement fell due.

26. The first respondent, who is appearing in  

person,  has  not  been  able  to  establish  

1

before us that he is a member of teaching  

staff or he was treated at par with the  

teachers. In that view of the matter his  

claim to continue in service after 60 years  

of  age  cannot  be  sustained  and  the  High  

Court  came  to  an  erroneous  finding  in  

taking a contrary view.

27. Whether  a  particular  employee  has  to  be  

treated at par with the teaching staff is  

by and large a decision of the management  

of  the  appellant  institute  and  it  is  

difficult for this Court to interfere with  

the  said  decision  unless  it  is  ex  facie  

perverse. Here, no such case has been made  

out by the first respondent.

28. It has been held by this Court, more than  

once,  that  prescribing  the  age  of  

retirement  is  a  managerial  function  and  

such decisions are taken by the management  

1

of the concerned institute on consideration  

of  various  aspects.  One  of  the  most  

predominant  consideration  is  the  need  of  

the institute, its functional requirements  

and efficient management of its manpower.  

These are the areas where the Court should  

not normally venture and judgment in this  

area  should  be  best  left  with  the  

authorities who are in-charge of running or  

managing such institutes. However, if the  

Court finds that the policy in fixing the  

age  of  retirement  was  not  based  on  any  

intelligible  criterion  or  is  founded  on  

such  a  basis  which  are  patently  

unreasonable and perverse, the Court has a  

bounden duty to interfere and direct the  

concerned  management  to  proceed  on  a  

reasonable basis.

29. In  B.  Bharat  Kumar  and  Ors. Vs.  Osmania  University  and  Ors. –  (2007)  11  SCC  58,  

1

this  Court  expressed  such  a  view  in  

paragraph 19 at page 73 of the judgment and  

which is quoted below:

“Learned counsel also argued, to a great  extent,  the  desirability  of  the  age  of  superannuation being raised to 60 or 62,  as  the  case  may  be.  We  again  reiterate  that it is not for this Court to formulate  a policy as to what the age of retirement  should  be  as  by  doing  so  we  would  be  trailing into the dangerious area of the  wisdom  of  the  legislation.  If  the  State  Government  in  its  discretion,  which  is  permissible  to  it  under  the  scheme,  decides  to  restrict  the  age  and  not  increase it to 60, or as the case may be,  62,  it  was  perfectly  justified  in  doing  so.”

30. Similar views have been expressed recently  

by another Bench of this Court in Nagaland  Senior Govt. Employees Welfare Association  and Ors. Vs. The State of Nagaland and Ors.  – Civil appeal No. 4955 of 2010 decided on  

6.7.2010. In paragraph 40 of the judgment  

this Court opined as follows:

“…The rule of retirement on completion of  35  years  of  service  has  relevance  to  employees  who  have  joined  service  at  an  age  below  25  years  and  the  prescription  

2

with regard to retirement at the age of 60  years is in respect of the persons joining  service at the age of 25 and thereafter.  The  above  two  categories  of  employees,  though performing similar duties and may  be identically placed otherwise can still  be  reasonably  understood  to  form  two  different classes to whom application of  two rules of retirement will not violate  Article 14….”

31. This  Court  must  remember  that  in  the  

segment  of  white  collared  employees,  

opportunities are quite few and there is a  

burning unemployment problem. Therefore, if  

considering  the  ground  realities  the  

Government  fixes  60  years  as  the  age  of  

retirement  for  certain  categories  of  

employees, the Court should be very slow  

and  circumspect  before  interfering  with  

such decisions.

32. This  Court  finds  that  there  is  a  valid  

rationale in allowing teachers and persons  

holding  posts  which  are  at  par  with  

teachers  to  work  beyond  60  years.  The  

2

reason  for  this  is  that  it  is  very  

difficult  to  find  a  good  faculty  of  

academicians for doing the job of teachers.  

In  any  discipline  and  especially  in  a  

discipline in an institute like I.I.T., it  

is very difficult to replace an experienced  

teacher  with  years  of  learning,  maturity  

and experience. This explains why in many  

cases  even  teachers  are  retained  beyond  

their extended period of retirement by way  

of  extension  or  their  services  are  

continued on the basis of  re-employment.  

This  is  done  to  preserve  the  intrinsic  

value and quality of teaching imparted in  

these institutions.  

33. Therefore,  this  Court  does  not  find  any  

error  in  the  decision  of  the  appellant  

whereby  the  benefit  of  service  upto  62  

years is confined to teachers and to those  

employees who are on a par with teachers.  

2

Thus,  in  passing  the  impugned  order  of  

retirement of the first respondent on his  

attaining  the  age  of  60  years,  the  

appellant has not committed any illegality.

34. In this matter a somewhat larger question  

cropped up in view of submissions made by  

learned Solicitor General, who appeared on  

behalf of the Union of India, the second  

respondent.  The learned Solicitor drew our  

attention to Rule 209(6)(iv)(a) of Grants-

in-aid and loan rules.  Relying on the said  

rules, the learned Solicitor submitted that  

the  age  of  retirement  of  teachers  and  

others employed in I.I.Ts and I.I.Ms has  

been fixed at par with Central Government  

employees.   The  said  rule  is  set  out  

below:-

“All  grantee  institutions  or organizations which receive more than fifty  percent  of  their  recurring expenditure in form of grant-in-aid, should ordinarily formulate terms and conditions  of  service  of  their employees which are by and large not  2

higher  than  those  applicable  to similar  categories  of  employees  in central  government.   In  exceptional cases  relaxation  may  be  made  in consultation  with  the  Ministry  of Finance.”

35. Considering  the  aforesaid  stand  of  the  

second  respondent,  a  question  of  public  

importance  which  arises  is  whether  the  

aforesaid rules can be made applicable to  

I.I.Ts and I.I.Ms which are Institutes of  

National importance.  This Court pointedly  

asked  this  question  to  the  learned  

Solicitor  whether  by  applying  the  said  

rules  independence  of  institutions  like  

I.I.Ts and I.I.Ms in matter of employment  

of the teachers is sought to be controlled.  

Matter of concern for this Court is whether  

in  the  process,  the  autonomy  of  these  

institutions  is  diluted  by  a  mindless  

bureaucratization  of  educational  

institutions  which  are  to  function  as  

centres of excellence and are Institutions  

of National Importance.  2

36. On such query being raised by this Court,  

the learned Solicitor wanted some time for  

taking instructions and ultimately filed an  

additional affidavit on behalf of Union of  

India, the second respondent.   

37. Reference in this connection may be made to  

Entry 63 and 64 of List I of the Seventh  

Schedule of the Constitution.  Those two  

entries are set out:-

“63.The  institutions  known  at  the  commencement of this Constitution as the  Benares  Hindu  University,  the  Aligarh  Muslim  University  and  the  Delhi  University; the University established in  pursuance  of  Article  371-E  any  other  institution declared by Parliament by law  to  be  an  institution  of  national  importance.  

64.  Institutions  for  scientific  or  technical  education  financed  by  the  Government of India wholly or in part and  declared  by  Parliament  by  law  to  be  institutions of national importance.”

38. It may be mentioned that the Preamble of  

the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 (the  

said Act), which is an Act of Parliament,  

2

shows  that  the  same  has  been  enacted  to  

declare certain institutions of technology  

to be institutions of National Importance.  

Section 2 of the said Act runs as under:-

“2.  Whereas  the  objects  of  the  institutions  known  as  the  Indian  Institute  of  Technology,  Bombay,  the  College  of  Engineering  and  Technology,  Delhi,  the  Indian  Institute  of  Technology,  Kanpur  and  the  Indian  Institute of Technology, Madras are such  as to make them institutions of national  importance,  it  is  hereby  declared  that  each such institution is an institution  of national importance.”

39. It is clear from Section 2 of the aforesaid  

Act that I.I.T Kanpur is an Institution of  

National Importance.  Section 4 of the Act  

makes  it  clear  that  each  of  the  

institutions mentioned in Section 2 shall  

be  a  body  corporate  having  a  perpetual  

succession and a common seal.

40. Learned Solicitor submitted that the Union  

of India is committed to ensure that these  

Institutions of National Importance retain  

their autonomy and also continue as centres  2

of excellence and ultimately become a world  

class  centre  of  academic  pursuit  and  

research.   

41. From the stand of the Union of India, the  

second  respondent,  it  appears  that  under  

the  said  Act,  every  institute,  under  

Section 4 of the said Act, shall have a  

Board of Governors and under Section 11 of  

it the Chairman is to be nominated by the  

Visitor.  Under Section 9 of the Act the  

Visitor  is  the  President  of  India.   It  

appears that it is the Board of Governors  

constituted  under  Section  11,  which  is  

responsible  for  general  superintendence,  

directions and control of the affairs of  

the institute.  Under clause (d) of sub-

section  (2)  of  Section  13,  the  Board  of  

Governors is authorized to appoint persons  

to act as academics and under this power  

the  Board  of  Governors  appoint  other  

2

persons to various posts in the institute.  

The  learned  Solicitor  further  submitted  

that the actual composition of the Board of  

Governor of I.I.T, Kanpur consists mainly  

of academician and educationists.   

42. In  the  affidavit,  disclosure  about  the  

composition  of  the  Board  of  Governors,  

which has been made is as follows:-

“a) Chairman – Prof. M. Anandakrishnan b) Member, ex-officio – Director (Prof. Sanjay

Dhande)  c) Member –

-  Prof.  R.S.  Nirjhar,  Vice-Chancellor,  Gautam  Buddha  University  *(UP  Govt.  nominee)

- Shri Aman Kumar Singh, Secretary to Chief  Minister (Chattisgarh nominee)

d)  Member (4 persons having special knowledge  to be   nominated by the Council): - Prof. D.V. Singh, Former Vice-chancellor,  University of Roorkee. -  Prof.  Rajan  Harshe,  Vice-Chancellor,  Allahabad University.

- Shri Ashok Thakur, Additional Sec. GOI

- Shri N.K. Sinha, Joint Secretary, GOI

e) Members nominated by Senate: - Prof. I.B. Dhariyal

2

- Prof. Rajiv Shekhar”

43. Under  Section  31  of  the  Act  the  Central  

Government  may  by  a  notification  in  the  

official gazette establish a Central Board  

to be called the Council and in the Council  

the  Minister  incharge  of  technical  

education of the Central Government shall  

be the ex-officio Chairman.   

44. From the list of the re-constituted Council  

of I.I.Ts it appears that Chairman of all  

the  I.I.Ts,  namely,  I.I.T  Bombay,  I.I.T  

Delhi,  I.I.T Guwahati, I.I.T Kanpur, I.I.T  

Kharagpur, I.I.T Madras, I.I.T Roorkee are  

members of the said Council. Most of them  

are professors or academicians. The list of  

the aforesaid re-constituted Council is set  

out below:-

“List of Members of the re-constituted Council of  Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs)

2

Name Provision  in  the  Act

Shri Kapil Sibal  Hon’ble Minister (HRD)

Chairman of  the Council of  

IITs

Ex-officio [Section 31(2)(a)]]

Dr.  Anil  Kakodkar,  Chairman, BoG, IIT Bombay

Member Ex-officio [Section 31(2)(b)]]

Shri  R.P.  Agrawal,  Chairman, BoG, IIT Delhi  

Member - do -

Dr. R.P. Singh, Chairman, BoG, IIT Guwahati

Member - do -

Prof.  M.  Anandakrishnan,  Chairman, BoG, IIT Kanpur

Member - do -

Shri B. Muthuraman, Chairman, BoG, IIT Kharagpur

Member - do -

Dr. R. Chidambaram,  Chairman, BoG, IIT Madras

Member - do -

Shri Ashok Bhatnagar, Chairman, BoG, IIT Roorkee  

Member - do -

Prof. Devang V. Khakhar, Director,  IIT Bombay

Member Ex-officio (Section 31(2)(c)]

Prof. Surendra Prasad, Director, IIT Delhi

Member - do -

Prof.  Gautam  Barua,  Director, IIT Guwahati  

Member - do -

Prof. S.G. Dhande, Director,  IIT Kanpur

Member - do -

Prof.  Damodar  Acharya,  Director, IIT Kharagpur

Member - do -

Prof. M.S. Ananth, Director, IIT Madras

Member - do -

Dr. S.C. Saxena, Director, IIT Roorkee

Member - do -

Prof. Sukhdev Thorat, Chairman,  University  Grants Commission

Member Ex-officio (Section 31(2)(d)]

Prof. Samir K. Brahmachari,

Member Ex-officio (Section 31(2)(e)]

3

Director General (DG), Council of Scientific and  Industrial  Research  (CSIR) Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Chairman, Council  of  Indian  Institute  of  Science  (IISc), Bangalore

Member Ex-officio (Section 31(2)(f)]

Prof. P. Balaram, Director, Indian  Institute  of  Science (IISc), Bangalore

Member Ex-officio [Section 31(2)(g)]

Dr. S.S. Mantha, Chairman, All  India  Council  for  Technical  Education  (AICTE)

Member [Section 31(2)(i)]

Prof. C.N.R.Rao, Chairman, Scientific  Advisory  Council  to  the  Prime  Minister

Member (term upto  5.9.2012)

[Section 31(2)(j)]

Prof. C.S. Seshadri, Director, Chennai  Mathematical  Institute  

- do - - do -

Prof.  Sabyasachi  Bhattacharya,  Ex-Director, Tata  Institute  of  Fundamental  Research  (TIFR), Mumbai

- do - - do -

Dr. Kota Harinarayan, Chairman, Research  Council  of  Central  Scientific  Instruments  Organization  (CSIO),  National  Aerospace  Laboratories, Bangalore

- do - - do -

Shri Tarun Das,  Chief Mentor, Confederation  of  Indian  

- do - - do -

3

Industry, Gurgaon Smt.  Vasanthi  Stanley,  MP, Rajya Sabha

Member (co-terminus)

[Section 31(2)(k)]

Shri  Deepender  Singh  Hooda, MP, Lok Sabha

- do - - do -

Shri  Janardhana  Swamy,  MP, Lok Sabha

- do - - do -

Smt. Vibha Puri Das, Secretary, Deptt.  of  Higher  Education

Representative  of the  

Ministry of  Human Resource  Development

[Section 31(2)(h)]

Ms. Sushma Nath, Secretary, Department of Expenditure,  Ministry  of  Finance   

Representative  of the  

Ministry of  Finance

- do -

Shri R. Chandrasekhar, Secretary, Department of Information  Technology

Representative  of any other  

Central  Government  Ministry

- do -

Shri Ashok Thakur, Additional  Secretary  (HE), Ministry  of  Human  Resource  Development,  Deptt.  of  Higher  Education  

Secretary, IIT Council

[Section 31(3)]

45. Under Section 33 of the Act it is the duty  

of the council to coordinate the activities  

of all the institutes and to perform all  

the  functions  which  are  specified  under  

Section 33(2) of the Act.  

3

46. Relying on the aforesaid provision of the  

Act and the re-constituted Council of the  

I.I.Ts,  the  learned  Solicitor  submitted,  

and  in  our  view  rightly,  that  all  major  

decision making exercise has been left in  

the  hands  of  the  re-constituted  Council  

which  is  predominantly  composed  of  

academicians.   

47. It appears from the disclosures made before  

us that the Council in its 40th meeting held  

on 19.10.2009 has constituted a committee  

under  the  Chairmanship  of  Dr.  Anil  

Kakodkar,  Chairman,  Board  of  Governors,  

I.I.T Bombay “for suggesting a roadmap for  

the autonomy and the future of the I.I.Ts  

as  world  class  institutions  for  research  

and higher learning”.  Pursuant to the said  

resolution  in  the  40th meeting  of  the  

Council, a Committee has been constituted  

by  the  Ministry  of  Human  Resource  

3

Development,  Government  of  India  by  a  

notification dated 3.2.2010.  The prefatory  

part  of  the  said  notification  is  as  

follows:-

“In the 40th meeting of Council of IITs  held under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble HRM  on 19th October, 2009 (refer minutes issued  vide  F.  No.  19-3/2009-TS.  1  dated  24th  November,  2009),  it  was  decided  that  a  Committee,  comprising  Dr.  Anil  Kakodkar,  Chairman, BoG, IIT Bombay and four other  members  to  be  nominated  by  him,  may  be  constituted for suggesting a roadmap for  the autonomy and the future of the IITs as  world class institutions for research and  higher learning. 2. Accordingly,  it  has  been  decided  to  constitute  a  Committee  under  the  Chairmanship  of  Dr.  Anil  Kakodkar,  Chairman,  BoG,  IIT  Bombay  to  suggest  a  roadmap for the autonomy and future of the  IITs.  Composition of the Committee will  be as under:”

48. And the terms of reference of the Committee  

are as under:-

“The Terms of Reference of the Committee  are as follows:

3

1. To  suggest  a  road-map  for  strengthening  Financial,  Administrative  and  Academic  autonomy  of the IITs;

2. The  issue  of  autonomy  is  closely  linked  with  the  capacity  of  institutions  to  raise  their  own  resources  including  through  increase  in  fees  in  the  IITs  albeit  in  a  gradual  manner.   While  doing  so  interest  of  the  weaker  sections  of  the society could be taken care of.  The committee is to suggest a “means- blind  system”  wherein  scholarships  are provided to the deserving, and a  system of education loans dovetailed  into  it.   For  the  students  who  continue  to  research  and  take  up  teaching assignments as a career, a  system of interest, loan scheme could  be explored;  

3. The  Committee  to  suggest  ways  and  means  to  retain/attract  top  B.Tech  students  within  the  IIT  system  and  outside  to  Post  Graduate  and  Ph.  D  programmes.   Institutes  should  be  incentivised by way of higher funding  based  upon  the  number  of  Post  Graduate student enrolled and number  of Ph. Ds awarded each year;

4. The  Committee  could  consider  the  issue  of  faculty  induction  and  development.  Measures to improve the  strength  of  IIT  faculty  may  be  suggested  for  adoption  and  implementation;

5. To  suggest  a  self  primed  system  within  the  IITs  to  achieve  the  optimal level of intake of students  each year (UG and PG), which but for  the  MHRD  initiated  OSC  expansion  programme has remained stagnant.  The  Committee  could  explore  the  possibility of releasing funds to the  Institute  on  per  student  basis  to  incentivise growth;

3

6. To  suggest  means  to  raise  the  resources/corpus of the IITs through  research project from the Government,  Industry, Consultancy, Donations from  alumni,  etc.,  and  to  explore  the  possibility  of  matching  grants  from  the Ministry;

7. During the XI Plan period, the IITs  have  been  in  an  expansive  mode  in  that it doubled its numbers from 7 to  15.  The Committee to take stock of  the  present  expansion  programme  and  also  suggest  the  future  course  of  action  in  terms  of  inclusion,  expansion and excellence in the XII  Plan period and beyond;

8. The  Committee  will  also  look  into  possible  synergies  that  could  be  developed  from  not  only  interaction  and  collaboration  amongst  the  IITs,  e.g., consortium of IITs to take up  research  projects  etc.,  but  also  linking  up  with  other  national  Institutes like IIMs, IISERs, IISc.,  IITs, NITs, etc.  The Committee will  also  look  into  the  role  that  IITs  have been playing and could play in  the future to increase its role as a  human  resource  and  technology  provider  in  support  of  inclusive  national  development  in  a  rapidly  developing/growing economy; and

9. The Committee would also review a few  similar  exercises  that  have  taken  place  elsewhere  in  the  world  to  understand  the  process  involved  to  arrive  at  credible  recommendations.  For this purpose, the Committee could  invite  a  few  eminent  leaders  from  some  of  the  successful  institutions  for  discussions  and  advice.   The  Committee  would  also  consult  different  stakeholders,  e.g.,  IIT  Management,  Faculty,  Alumni,  Industry,  S&T  agencies,  Technical  Education  experts,  etc.   The  Committee may also take into account  Prof.  P.  Rama  Rao  Committee  recommendations  and  others  while  

3

working  out  a  road-map  for  IITs  to  scale new heights.”

49. The  learned  Solicitor  further  argued  

relying on a communication dated 22.7.2010  

that in order to minimize the Government’s  

interference  in  the  functioning  of  the  

I.I.Ts,  it  has  been  decided  that  the  

employees  of  the  I.I.Ts  instead  of  

addressing their grievance directly to the  

Ministry or directly to the Visitor should  

refer their grievances or representations  

within  the  institute  and  institute  may  

evolve a procedure for redressing grievance  

and appeals of such employees so that the  

Ministry does not have to intervene.  The  

purpose of issuing the said communication,  

which has been disclosed in para 3 thereof,  

is set out below:-

“I shall be grateful if all references to  the Ministry are sent in the rarest of  cases.   This  will  go  a  long  way  in  helping  the  Division  to  discharge  its  

3

responsibilities more efficiently and at  the  same  time  strengthen  the  autonomy  issues of the institutes.”  

50. The learned Solicitor also argued that the  

Council in its 39th meeting dated 28.1.2009  

recommended that the age of superannuation  

of  the  Directors  of  I.I.T  should  be  

enhanced  to  70  years  and  the  age  of  

superannuation for faculty members should  

be enhanced to 65 years.  It has also been  

brought to our notice that the Visitor of  

the  Institute,  President  of  India,  has  

approved  the  said  proposal  for  making  

suitable  amendment  in  the  statutes  of  

I.I.T.   The  approval  of  the  Visitor  for  

making suitable amendments in the statutes  

of  I.I.T  has  also  been  disclosed  before  

this Court and in the communication dated  

20.7.2010  on  behalf  of  the  second  

respondent  it  has  been  made  clear  as  

follows:- 3

“It has also been noticed that many of  the provisions contained in the Statutes  of IITs have become obsolete or are not  updated.   You  are  advised  to  initiate  action to update the provisions of the  Statutes.  The Statutes of IIT Roorkee  which are available on the website of IIT  Roorkee  could  be  used  as  a  model  for  updating the Statutes.”

51. The learned Solicitor also brought to our  

notice  that  the  Government  of  India,  

Ministry of Human Resource Development has  

already  set  up  on  29.8.2008  a  Committee  

under  the  Chairmanship  of  Professor  

Goverdhan Mehta and five others to consider  

the revision of pay scales of the faculty  

and scientific staff of Central Technical  

Institutes  and  Professor  Goverdhan  Mehta  

Committee  has  on  7.02.2009  submitted  its  

report  regarding  revision  in  pay  and  

pursuant to such report of the Goverdhan  

Mehta Committee, the Government of India,  

Ministry of Human Resource Development has  

on  18.8.2009  and  16.9.2009  decided  to  

3

revise the pay of teaching and members of  

other  staff  of  centrally  funded  

institutions. The attention of this Court  

has  been  drawn  to  the  fact  that  the  

revision  which  has  been  approved  by  the  

Ministry is higher than the one recommended  

by the Goverdhan Mehta Committee.  In the  

forwarding  letter  given  by  the  said  

committee,  the  Chairman  of  the  Pay  

Committee opined as follows:-

“The Pay Committee is of the considered  opinion  that  the  acceptance  of  the  recommendations would attract and retain  outstanding academic talent in the field  of teaching in technical and professional  institutions.  It would also help in the  emergence of India as a major player in  the world of Science and Technology.”  

52. From  the  materials  which  have  been  

disclosed  before  this  Court  in  the  

additional  affidavit  filed  by  the  second  

respondent, this Court is of the view that  

autonomy of those institutes is not being  

diluted. On the other hand an attempt is  4

made by the Government of India to improve  

the academic ambience of these institutes  

by  recommending  extension  of  age  of  

retirement of the Director of the Institute  

and  of  members  of  the  academic  faculty.  

Attempt has also been made to attract the  

best talent by a progressive revision of  

the pay scale. From the report of Professor  

Mehta Committee some portions are excerpted  

below and which would show that relevant  

aspects  of  strengthening  the  autonomy  of  

the  institute  coupled  with  improving  the  

performance of the institute as a centre of  

excellence has been engaging the attention  

of  the  Government  of  India.   Those  key  

concerns addressed in the report are set  

out below:-

“1.5 The New Challenges The key, therefore, lies in the expansion  – more than ever before- of our higher  education base, particularly of science  and  technology  and  a  better  societal  context  connect.   We  must,  therefore,  convert  this  potential  of  becoming  a  

4

developed society and a leading player in  World affair in the 21st Century into a  reality - and do it real fast.  We need  many more quality institutions of global  academic  standing  with  the  highest  possible standards in Science, Technology  and Management.  And also, we need to  expand  the  intake  of  the  existing  institutions,  to  provide  opportunities  and access to more students, especially  from the socially challenged sections of  the society. Recent  upheavals  in  the  world  economy  have  underscored  once  again  and  more  urgently  the  need  for  investing  large  resources into quality higher education  so  as  to  provide  a  platform  for  accelerated  innovations,  developing  cutting edge and sustainable technologies  to take care of our emerging needs and  also to play a more significant role in  the recovery of the world economy.

1.10 What needs to be done? As is obvious from the above, teaching  institutions like the IIT, IIM, NIT etc.  need to offer, as a first step, better  pay  scales.   And  it  is  not  just  the  scales  of  pay  but  a  whole  package  of  financial  incentives,  allowances  and  other benefits that needs to be offered  to faculty members, more specifically to  make it attractive at the entry level.

However, it may also be recognized that  better ‘pay package’ though essential may  not  be  sufficient  for  attracting  competent  persons  to  the  realm  of  teaching and academia.  Institutions may  also  have  to  offer  better  research  support and facilities.

Institutions  also  need  to  create  and  strengthen  more  research  friendly  environment  and  foster  creativity  in  order to attract new entrants in to the  portals of the academic world and also to  retain the existing faculty.

4

Additionally, institutions need to devise  robust instruments of peer assessment to  recognize  and  reward  outstanding  merit  among the members of the faculty.”

53. In view of such disclosure of materials,  

this Court is satisfied that the autonomy  

of these institutes is preserved and they  

are  structurally  built  up  as  centres  of  

academic excellence and the concern of the  

Court has been answered and satisfied to a  

large extent.  

54. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. However,  

this Court finds that the first respondent  

had to stay in the quarter for some time  

more  than  the  scheduled  period  which  is  

permissible  under  the  Rules  and  the  

appellant has charged penal rent for the  

same.  If  the  first  respondent  makes  a  

suitable representation within six weeks,  

from the date of receiving a copy of this  

judgment, for reducing the amount which has  

been charged as penal rent from him, the  4

appellant will consider and dispose of the  

same by a speaking order within two months  

thereafter in accordance with law but by  

taking a sympathetic view.

55. The  appeal  is  allowed.  The  order  of  the  

High  Court  is  set  aside.  However,  there  

will be no order as to costs.  

.......................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

.......................J. New Delhi (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) November 24, 2010   

4