THULASI RAMASAMY Vs. CHAIRMAN INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TAMIL STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF TAMIL DEVELOPMENT CULTURE FORT ST GEORGE CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner has been a Senior Research Fellow in the Faculty of Sociology, Arts and Culture, employed under the International Institute of Tamil Studies, Chennai, from the year, 1984. The International Institute of Tamil Studies is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Institute has been funded by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The activities of the Institute are governed by certain specific rules and regulations and a Memorandum of Association.

(3.) IT has been further stated that the Board of Governors had framed the Bye-Laws in the year, 1978 and the International Institute of Tamil Studies Service Regulations in the year, 1990, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 11 of the Rules and Regulations of the Institute. Inspite of the fact that the petitioner has been serving in the Institute for more than 15 years as an academic staff, he has filed the present writ petition only 15 days prior to his retirement. He has not made any representation with regard to the age of the retirement at an earlier point of time. The petitioner had joined in service knowing full well that the retirement age is 58 years. Both the Bye-Laws and the Regulations of the Institute were framed in exercise of the powers conferred, under Rule 11 of the Rules and Regulations. The Bye-Laws and the Rules and Regulations were framed in the year, 1990. The applicability of the service Regulations of the year, 1990 has been accepted by this Court in its order in W.P.No.16091 of 2000. Further, the service of the petitioner has been regularised only in accordance with the 1990 Regulations. In such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to claim that only the 1978 Bye-Laws would be applicable to him. Since the petitioner had not been appointed for a tenure upto the period of his attaining superannuation at the age of 60 years, Clause 28 of the Bye-Laws prescribes the age of retirement as 58 years and there is no discrepancy in the rules of the Institute, as alleged by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner, relying on Clause 21 of Bye-Laws framed in the year, 1978. The competent authority for interpreting the regulations is the Governing Council, applying Clause 23 of 1990 regulations, as provided under Clause 2(2) of the Service Regulations of the Institute, of the year 1990. Further, the University Grants Commission has included the International Institute of Tamil Studies in the list of colleges maintained by the Commission, under Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act. Therefore, the Institute cannot be on par with the Tamil University. Taking into consideration the Government order, in G.O.Ms.No.111, Higher Education (H1) Department, dated 24.3.1999, the petitioner ought to have retired on attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner cannot claim parity with the teachers of University, as the service conditions of the University Teachers are entirely different. In fact, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the relevant rule which prescribes the age of retirement as 58 years. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.