AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. - (1.) These are 68 petitions in which the petitioners are either working as teachers in the Panjab University Campus (including its outstation campuses), or are teaching in colleges in Chandigarh, run by different private managements/bodies and are getting grant-in-aid from the Chandigarh Administration. The designation of the petitioners varies from being Professors in the University to Associate/Assistant Professors in the colleges and other designations as come between these two posts. They are all seeking writs of mandamus directing the respondent- Panjab University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University) and the Central Government, to raise their age of superannuation from service to 65 years, from 60 years, as at present. In most of the cases of the University teachers, the State of Punjab has also been impleaded as a respondent, whereas in most of the cases of the college teachers, the Union Territory of Chandigarh has been so impleaded. In most of the writ petitions, the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the UGC or the Commission), has also been impleaded as a respondent, since the claim of the petitioners is essentially based on the Regulations issued by the Commission in the year 2010, which have been duly notified and published in the Gazette of India on September 18, 2010. It will be appropriate to notice at the outset itself, that the final authority to take a decision on any amendment in the Regulations of the Panjab University, in which the age of superannuation is stipulated, is the Central Govt., as per Section 2 (b) of the Panjab University Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947), read with Section 31 thereof. However, the State of Punjab, being a 'stakeholder' in the University, to which it also makes some financial contribution, in the annual deficit/maintenance grant of the University, and is also represented in the Senate/Syndicate of the University, through its functionaries, has been impleaded, considering it to be a necessary party. Similarly, since 95 per cent of the budget deficit of each privately managed college situated in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, is funded by the Administration of the Union Territory, the U.T. has also been considered a necessary party and has been impleaded as such.
(2.) The facts are essentially being taken from CWP No. 11988 of 2014, as it was the first petition that was filed, which first came up for hearing on 12.06.2014. However, where necessary, the pleadings in the other petitions would also be referred to, especially in view of the fact that different affidavits have been filed from time to time, during the course of hearing, in a different writ petition, by the parties. The petitioner in CWP No.11988 of 2014, who is a Professor in the Department of Public Administration, in the University, at Chandigarh, is stated to have joined as a Lecturer in the said department in the year 1981, was promoted to the post of Reader on 23.11.1988 and thereafter to the post of Professor on 28.07.1998. His date of birth being 15.06.1954, he was sought to be relieved on 30.06.2014 upon having completed the age of 60 years, leading to his filing the petition, which came up for hearing for the first time on 12.06.2014 and while issuing notice of motion, notice re: stay was also issued and it was ordered that if the retirement of the petitioner takes place in the meantime, it would be subject to the final disposal of the writ petition. When the matter came up on the next date, i.e. 30.06.2014, the State of Punjab, which had not been impleaded as a respondent, was so impleaded and while issuing notice issued to the State Government, it was further ordered that the petitioner would be allowed to continue in service, till the next date of hearing, but the continued service would be subject to the final decision in the writ petition. After CWP No. 11988 of 2014, other writ petitions came to be filed from time to time, usually as and when the petitioners in those cases were on the verge of attaining the age of superannuation; and in such cases, interim orders were passed on the same terms as in the first petition, which were continued thereafter.
(3.) It is contended in the first petition, that the University, sui generis, is an inter-State University and is:- (i) Centrally incorporated; (ii) Centrally controlled/run; (iii) Centrally funded on the norms of central universities, through the University Grants Commission. ;