- (1.) THE appellants filed W.P. (S) No. 4771 of 2001 before this Court seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the period of service of the petitioners as Professors of the University, allow them to continue till attaining the age of 62 years, for implementation of the notification issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the statutory direction issued by the Central Government and for other incidental reliefs.
(2.) ACCORDING to the appellants, they were Professors and they were entitled to remain in service until their attaining the age of 62 years in view of the recommendation of the UGC issued under the University Grant Commission Act, 1956 and the State and the University who had accepted the recommendations of the UGC, were not justified in refusing to enhance the age of superannuation to 62 years from the current 60 years. The appellants could not dispute that under Section 67 of the Bihar State Universities Act, adopted in the State of Jharkhand, the age of superannuation of teachers like the appellants was 60 years. Their contention is that since under Entry 66 List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the Parliament has the power to legislate on higher education and for its regulation and to ensure excellence, the recommendation of the UGC as issued under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 should be accepted in toto by the State Government and the University and it was not open to the University and the State to take the stand that they will not accept the recommendation regarding the age of superannuation, as they have now done. The University submitted that as far as it was concerned, it being a creature of the statute, it was governed by Section 67 of the Bihar State Universities Act and it was bound to implement that provision so long it governs the University and unless the law was amended, the University could not implement the recommendation of the UGC or enhance the age of superannuation from the present 60 years to 62 years, as recommended by the UGC.
(3.) THE State submitted that while adopting the recommendation of the UGC, the State had examined the question whether the age of superannuation should be increased and the committee constituted in that behalf, in Annexure 'A' recommendations annexed to the counter affidavit, had recommended the adoption of some of the directions of the UGC but had specifically recommended that the age of superannuation be retained as 60 years as now obtaining under Section 67 of the Bihar State Universities Act. It was further submitted by the State that a mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to amend the law and so long as Section 67 of the Act remains on the statute book, the appellants and those like the appellants had to retire on attaining the age of 60 years. The learned Single Judge, after referring to the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Prof. Ranjlt Singh Gandhi and Ors., v. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in : (2000) 3 PLJR 501 held that the provisions of Section 67 of the Act will prevail over the recommendations of the UGC and so long as Section 67 of the Act is in force, the age of superannuation had to be taken as 60 years and could not be enhanced to 62 years and in view of this the appellants were not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition.;