I. I. T.KANPUR versus UMESH CHANDRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 667 · Decided: 02-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

l.I.T., KANPUR 
v. 
UMESH CHANDRA AND ORS. 
MAY 2, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur Statutes: Statutes I I and 
I2(3)(e). 
Staff members-Classification of-Academic and technical category-
Gliding and Soaring Centre-Age of superannuation-Post of Senior Pilot 
Instructor-Whether academic or technical-Senior Pilot Instructor claimed 
A 
B 
c 
that his age of superannuation should be 62 years since the post held by him D 
was academic-High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the post 
of Senior Pilot Instructor belonged to the academic category-Correctness 
of-Held: A Senior Pilot Instructor was appointed mainly in the Gliding and 
Soaring centre to provide an informal recreational avenue to the members 
of the Gliding and Soaring Centre in adventure sports and other aviation 
sports in Aero-modeling club-The Selection Committee constituted under E 
the Statute I 2(3)(e) for appointing a Senior pilot Instructor and other 
persons in the same department clearly shows that a senior Pilot Instructor 
was covered under the category of technical staff-Hence age of 
superannuation of a Senior Pilot Instructor is 60 years-Institutes of 
Technology Act, I961. 
The first respondent was appointed as a Junior Pilot Instructor on 
contract basis in the appellant-institution and was later on appointed to the 
post of Senior Pilot Instructor (Glider). In terms of the offer of appointment, 
F 
it was stated that the age of superannuation would be 60 years. The appellant 
informed the first respondent that he would reach the age of superannuation G 
on the expiry of 31.01.2006. The first respondent submitted a representation 
asserting that as the post of Senior Pilot Instructor held by him was an 
academic post, his age of superannuation should be treated as 62 years. The 
High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent holding that 
he belonged to the academic category. Hence the appeal. 
667 
H 
668 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. No general qualification was fixed for the post of Senior 
Pilot Instructor. A person having no educational qualification as such but 
having the requisite certificate could have been appointed as a Senior Pilot 
Instructor. There exists a dispute as to whether gliding is a part of the 
B curriculum and syllabus of the Institute or not. The experience of the candidate 
requisite for holding the post of Senior Pilot Instructor no doubt provides 
that the candidate should have the ability to conduct flights for academic 
programme but the same also provides that he should be able to discharge 
various related administrative duties for running the centre. The term 
C "academic programme" does not necessarily mean that he should be able to 
take part in the academic activities of the institute. (673-G; 674-A-B( 
1.2. From the advertisement itself no inference can be drawn that the 
post of Senior Pilot Instructor was for appointment in the academic category 
or for technical category of the staff. However, what was emphasized was the 
D flying licence and experience. (674-B( 
2.1. Clause (d) of Statute 12(3) of the Indian Institute of Technology, 
Kanpur Statutes applies only to the administrative staff, namely, Registrar 
or Assistant Registrar etc. who do not fall in the category of either academic 
staff or technical staff. Thus sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Statute 12(3) being 
E applicable to the academic staff and clause (d) thereof being applicable to the 
administrative staff, clause (e), therefore, ordinarily would apply only to the 
technical staff. It is only from that angle that the fact that for all the posts 
which the first respondent had being holding as also for the post of Chief 
Pilot Instructor, constitution of the Selection Committee is in terms of sub-
F clause (e), assumes significance. (675-F-G( 
2.2. For selection of the academic staff an expert nominated by the Senate 
is a member of the Selection Committee. Such a requirement does not exist 
for selection of a member of the technical staff. (676-B( 
G 
2.3. The fact that the name of the first respondent appears in the scale 
of pay issued by the officers of the faculty is not decisive. It is one thing to 
say that the matter relating to scale of pay etc. had been considered by one 
department having regard to the administrative exigency, but the same would 
not necessarily lead to a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.