INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR versus RAJA RAM VERMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 630 · Decided: 24-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010) 15 (ADDL.) $.C.R. 630 
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR 
v. 
RAJA RAM VERMA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5341 of 2003) 
NOVEMBER 24, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Administrative law: Judicial review - Prescribing or 
extending age of retirement - Held: Is a managerial function 
C - Such decision taken by the management of the institutions 
like I. I. T. and I.I. M. are on consideration of various aspects -
Most predominant consideration is the need of the institute, , 
its functional requirements and efficient management of its 
manpower - These are the areas where the court should not 
D normally venture and judgment in this area should be best 
left with the authorities who are in-charge of running or 
managing such institutes - However, if court finds that the 
policy in fixing the age of retirement was not based on any 
intelligible criterion or is founded on such a basis which are 
E patently unreasonable and perverse, the court has a bounden 
duty to interfere and direct the concerned management to 
proc1~ed on a reasonable basis - Constitution of India, 1950 
- Article 14 - Institutes of Technology Act, 1961. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14 - Extension of age 
F of retirement - Intelligible differentia - I.I. T., Kanpur confined 
the benefit of service upto 62 years to teachers and to 
employees on par with teachers - Held: There is a valid 
rationale in allowing teachers and persons holding posts 
which are at par with teachers to work beyond 60 years - Good 
G faculty of academicians for doing the job of teachers is difficult 
to find - In any discipline and especially in a discipline in an 
institute like I.I. T., it is very difficult to replace an experienced 
teacher with years of learning, maturity and experience -
Institutes of Technology Act, 1961. 
H 
630 
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR v. 
631 
RAJA RAM VERMA 
Institutes of Technology Act, 1961: ss.2, 4, 11, 13, 31, 33 A 
- Autonomy of the Institution -
I.I. T Kanpur is an Institution 
of National Importance - The decision making exercise is with 
the council composed of academicians - Therefore, it cannot 
be said that the independence of the institutions is controlled 
or diluted by Government -
Education/Educational B 
institutions. 
The first respondent was appointed on 11.11.1983 to 
the post of Assistant Registrar at appellant•institute. He . 
was to retire on 31.8.2000 on attaining the age of 60 years. 
Initially the statute of 1.1.T. provided for 60 years as the age C 
of superannuation for all the staf'. members. The first 
respondent claimed his entitlement to continue till 62 
years of age on the basis of communications of the 
Ministry of Human Resource Development whereby th~ · .· 
age of superannuation of University and College teachers D 
was increased to 62 years. The appellant-institute sought 
for clarification as regards the applicability of the 
communications to the Assistant Registrars. One Mr. 
Bakre was allowed to continue in the absence of proper 
clarification from the Central Government. Subsequently E 
clarification was received and it was clear that the 
increase in the age of retirement was only in case of 
those categories o~ employees who could be treated at 
par with the teachers. The a'ppellant-institute passed an 
order to that effect. A writ petition was fhed by the first F 
respondent before the High Court challenging the said 
order. The High Court allowed the writ petition. -
The questions which arose for consideration· in the 
instant appeal were whether the decision of the appellant G 
that the benefit of service upto 62 years was confined to 
teachers and employees at par with teachers was 
justified; and whether Grant-in-aid and loan rules could 
be made applicable to 1.1.T. and 1.1.M. and by applying said 
rules, the independence of institutions like l_.l.T. and 1.1.M. H . 
632 
SUPREME COURT REP¢:>RTS [2010] 15 (ADDL) S.C R 
A in matter of employment of the teachers is sought to be 
diluted. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Prescribing the age of retirement is a 
B managerial function and such decisions are taken by the 
management of the concerned institute on consideration 
of various aspects. One of the most predominant 
consideration is the need of the institute, its functional 
requirements and efficient management of its manpower. 
C These are the areas where the court should not normally 
venture and judgment I~ this area should be be

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