MANAM SANKARA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Driver in the 5th respondent college on 1/10/1993 on consolidated pay of Rs.1,000.00 per month; that he was regularised and given regular pay scale by proceedings of the 5th respondent college in pay scale of 1875-50-2075-60-2375-75- 2750-90-3200-110-3750; that the post of the driver comes under non-teaching staff and that he is entitled to continue in service until the age of 62 years as per All India Council for Technical Education (for short 'AICTE') Regulations and as per Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for short 'AFRC') guidelines, he is entitled to continue in service up to 60 years of age. However, 5th respondent served an intimation letter dtd. 1/3/2018 stating that he is to be retired on 31/5/2018 on attaining 58 years of age, though he is entitled to continue until he attains the age of 62 years. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the 5th respondent dtd. 1/3/2018, present Writ Petition is filed.

(2.) Counter affidavit is filed by the 5th respondent denying the allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition stating that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as he is a driver of the college, as such, the question of applicability of Rules framed under AICTE or AFRC Regulations or the Amended Sec. 78-A of the A.P. Education Act does not arise, as the said provision relating to a person, who is working as non-teaching person in an unaided educational institution; that as per byelaw 7 of the Society, the President shall be the person to sue or to be sued on behalf of the Society and that as the petitioner did not made claim as party to the writ petition, as such, on this ground alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Sec. 78-A of the Education Act is applicable only to the staff of aided private educational institutions. That the AICTE Regulations applies to teaching staff in technical institutions and Universities including deemed universities imparting technical education and other such courses subject to the rules made by the Trusts and Societies in accordance with the norms under the Education Act. That the short title and commencement of Rules itself indicates that it is applicable only to teachers and other academic staff but it is not applicable even to the non-teaching staff of unaided engineering colleges. That the G.O.Ms.No.6 dtd. 17/5/2007 is framed for the purpose of fixation of fees in private unaided professional institutions under A.P. Educational Institutions Regulations of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee Act, 1983, but it cannot deal with the superannuation of the employees either teaching or non- teaching staff working in the unaided educational institutions. The G.O.Ms.No.59, dtd. 24/12/2014 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh enhancing the age from 58 years to 60 years with effect from 2/6/2014 as envisaged under the Act 4 of 2014, is applicable only to the Government employees but not applicable to the non-teaching staff. The byelaws of the Society does not indicate that the non-teaching staff are entitled to be continued beyond 58 years, which is the age of superannuation fixed and being followed since its inception. That the similar orders passed by this Court are in respect of teaching staff, as such, petitioner cannot equate himself to teaching staff. It is stated that the AICTE Regulations indicates that since there is a dearth of qualified teaching staff, the concerned technical/educational institutions are authorized to continue up to the age of 65 years, as such, petitioner is not entitled to continue beyond 58 years and sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

(3.) Heard Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt. G.Bhanu Priya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent.