Indian Institute Of Technology vs Raja Ram Verma & Ors

was appointed to the post of Assistant

Registrar at Indian Institute of

Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter I.I.T.) on

11.11.1983. As per Statute 13 of I.I.T.,

the respondent was due to retire on

31.08.2000 on attaining the age of 60

1 years. His case before us is that he should

have been allowed to continue upto the age

of 62 years.

2. I.I.T. Kanpur is a body incorporated under

the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961

(hereinafter `the Act'). Section 27 of the

Act provides for framing of first Statutes

by the I.I.T. Such statutes are to deal

with matters mentioned in Section 26.

Section 26 (g) provides for framing of

statutes relating to terms and conditions

of service of teachers and other staff of

the I.I.T. Section 31 of the Act provides

for the establishment of Council which is a

central body. Under Section 33 of the Act

the general duty of the Council is to

coordinate the activities of the Institute

and under Section 33(2)(b) one of the

general duties of the Council is to lay

down the policies regarding cadres, method

2 of recruitment and conditions of service of

employees amongst other things of common

interest.

3. Statute 11 classifies the employees under

three categories. They are (a) academic,

(b) technical and (c) administrative.

Respondent No. 1 who was appointed as an

Assistant Registrar falls under the third

category.

4. Generally, the statute 13 (2) framed under

the Act prescribes the age of

superannuation of a confirmed appointee.

Initially the statute provided for 60 years

as the age of superannuation for all the

staff members. By an amendment on

23.06.1989 however, a sub-statute 3 was

added making some changes. The said

amendment runs as follows:

3

"(3)Subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes, all the new appointments to posts on revised salary scales adopted with effect from 1st January 1986 under the Institutie shall ordinarily be made on probation for a period of one year after which period the appointee, if confirmed, shall continue to hold office, subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes as follows:

(a) Teaching Staff (faculty and Group `D' Staff): Till the end of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years

(b) Group A, B and C staff (non faculty):

Till the end of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years.

5. This amendment did not affect the

Respondent No. 1 as it was applicable for

those who were appointed w.e.f. 01.01.1986.

6. Thereafter, by an office order issued by

the Registrar's office, I.I.T. Kanpur,

dated 14.07.1998, the age of retirement was

increased from 58 to 60 years with effect

from 30.05.1998. This was done in respect

of members of Groups A, B and C (non

faculty) who had been appointed on or after

23.06.1989.

4 7. On 27.07.1998, the Ministry of Human

Resource Development addressed to the

Secretary, University Grants Commission,

and forwarded to the Vice Chancellors of

all Central Universities, Member Secretary,

All India Council for Technical Education

and Secretary of the Indian Council for

Agricultural Research, providing therein

that the age of superannuation of

University and College teachers would be 62

years with the liberty reserved to the

Universities and Colleges to re-employ

superannuated teachers within the existing

guidelines framed by the U.G.C.

8. The respondent No.1 claims his entitlement

to continue till 62 years of age on the

basis of this communication.

5 9. Another communication was issued on 31st

August, 1998 by the Department of

Education, Ministry of H.R.D. to the

Director of the I.I.T. with regard to

increase in the age of superannuation of

academic staff including personnel of

Registry, Library and Physical Education.

Thereupon, the appellant sought

clarification from the Ministry about the

term "Personnel of Registry, Library and

Physical Education Staff."

10. The case of the appellant is that it got a

telephonic communication from the Ministry

on or about 14th October 1998 that the

increase in the age of superannuation from

60 to 62 years is confined to the case of

Assistant Registrar level and the officers

above. Thereupon, the appellant allowed one

Shri. S.H. Bakre, Assistant Registrar to

continue in service, who was due to retire

6 on 31st August 1998. Thereafter, the

Chairman of the Board of Governors approved

the proposal of the Director, wherein it

was proposed that the staff, whose age of

retirement was 58 years, would superannuate

on attaining 60 years and the members of

the staff whose age of retirement at the

time of appointment was 60 years, would

superannuate on attaining 62 years.

However, the said proposal of the Director

even though approved by the Chairman, was

not put up before the Board of Governors

for ratification, hence no effect was given

to the same as required under statute 7(4)

of the first statute.

11. In Statute 7(4) of the statutes of I.I.T.,

all orders of the Chairman have to be

approved by the Board. The relevant

provision of Statute 7(4) is in the

following terms:

7

"7(4) In emergent cases the Chairman may exercise the powers of the Board and inform the Board of the action taken by him for its approval."

12. It has been urged on behalf of the

appellant that as respondent No.1 was

admittedly appointed on 11.11.1983, he was

due for superannuation on 31.12.2000 on

attaining the age of superannuation of 60

years in terms of statute 13(2). The exact

provision of Statute 13(2) in this

connection is set out below:

"(2) Subject to the provisions of the Act and the statutes, all appointments to posts under the Institute shall ordinarily be made on probation for a period of one year after which period the appointee, if confirmed, shall continue to hold his office subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes, till the end of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years.

Provided that where the Board considers that in the interests of students and for the purposes of teaching and guiding the research scholars any member of the academic staff should be reemployed, it may re-employ such a member till the end of the semester or the academic session as may be considered appropriate in the circumstances of each case.

8 Provided further that where it becomes necessary to re-employ any such member beyond the end of the semester or academic session as the case may be, the Board may with the previous approval of the visitor, re-employ any such member for a period upto three years in the first instance and upto two years thereafter and in no case exceeding the end of the academic session in which he attains the age of 65 years. Provided also that in no circumstances such member shall be reemployed for any purposes other than those of teaching and guiding the research scholars."

13. Then by a communication dated 6.11.1998 the

Government of India, the second respondent,

clarified the scheme notified in its

earlier communication dated 27.7.1998 to

the extent that the age of superannuation

at 62 will be applicable only to those

Registrars, Librarians, Physical Education

personnel who are treated at par with

teachers and whose age of superannuation

was 60 years.

14. Thereafter, the I.I.T. council met on

20.2.1999 and decided that the age of

9 superannuation of staff members of I.I.Ts

(except faculty and scientific/design staff

in Group A category) would continue to be

60 years, as in the case of the Central

Government employees.

15. In the meantime, the case of another

Assistant Registrar, namely Shri S.K.

Gupta, who was to retire on 31.3.1999, came

up for consideration and the then Director

of I.I.T. sought clarification from the

Ministry of Human Resource Development. In

seeking such a clarification, the Director

was informed by the Secretary, Ministry of

Human Resource Development that a

clarification would be sent shortly. In the

absence of any clarification, the Director

decided that till further clarification is

received from the Ministry, Shri S.K. Gupta

may continue.

1

16. However, on 30.3.1999 itself a

communication was received from the

Ministry of Human Resource Development

giving the clarification and in paragraph

(5) of the said clarification it was

provided as under:

"Attention of this Ministry has, however, been drawn to the fact that the position stated in para 4 above requires clarification. Accordingly, it is clarified that the increase in the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years indicated in this Ministry letter of even number dated 31st August, 1998 as stated above would be applicable only to those categories of employees of IITs, IIMs and IISc who are being treated at par with the teachers and whose age of superannuation was 60 years."

17. On 16.2.2000 a further clarification was

given by the second respondent to the

Director of the appellant that the increase

in the age of superannuation from 60 years

to 62 years would be applicable only to

those categories of employees of I.I.Ts,

I.I.Ms and I.I.Sc who are being treated at

1 par with the teachers and whose age of

superannuation was 60 years.

18. In view of the aforesaid clarification by

the second respondent, a grievance was

raised about alleged discrimination between

the members of faculty staff and those

members of staff who are categoried as non-

faculty staff. In the background of such a

plea of discrimination, the second

respondent, by its further communication

dated 24.4.2000, clarified that since the

members of the staff of various I.I.Ts are

classified into 3 categories namely, i)

academic ii) technical and iii)

administrative and others and since

Librarians are falling in the categories of

the academic staff, their age of retirement

would be 62 years.

1

19. Thereafter, the Board of Governors of the

appellant in its meeting held on 22.5.2000,

on consideration of the communication dated

24.4.2000 from the second respondent came

to the following conclusion:

"The Board was informed of the outcome of the discussions at the IITs Directors meeting held on 9th April, 2000. The Board after a brief discussion decided as under:

1.Those Assistant Registrars who are in service beyond 60 years will retire on December 31, 2000.

However, if a person reaches 62 years before that date, he will retire at the end of the month in which he completes 62 years.

2.Librarian and Deputy Librarian will retire on completing 62 years, in view of MHRD clarification.

3.A decision with respect to Physical Education Instructors- Class-A will be taken once a clarification is received from the MHRD."

20. Thereupon, a memorandum was issued by the

appellant on 17.7.2000 to the effect that

the date of superannuation of all the

Assistant Registrars, who figured in the

said memorandum will be 31st December, 2000. 1 However, Shri S.H. Bakre was not allowed to

continue since his date of superannuation

was 31.8.2000.

21. Being aggrieved by the said memorandum

dated 17.7.2000; respondent No.1 filed a

writ petition before the Allahabad High

Court.

22. The consistent case of the appellant before

the High Court was that age of retirement

of only those employees was enhanced who

could be treated at par with the teachers.

In the affidavit filed by the appellant

before the High Court they have reiterated

that they are bound by the communication

from the Ministry of Human Resources,

Government of India dated 30.3.1999 and

also one dated 24.4.2000. The relevant

part of the 30.3.1999 notification has been

set out above and the subsequent

1 clarification by the Ministry's

communication dated 24.4.2000 also relies

on para 5 of the Ministry's communication

dated 30.3.1999. On a combined reading of

the aforesaid two communications issued by

the second respondent, it is more than

clear that increase in the age of

retirement has been made available only to

those categories of employees who are

treated at par with the teachers.

23. However, the High Court on an erroneous

basis allowed the writ petition and quashed

the order of the appellant dated 17.7.2000.

It may be mentioned in this connection that

subsequently the Full Bench of the

Allahabad High Court by a judgment and

order dated 14.10.2004 disagreed with the

decision rendered by the Allahabad High

Court in favour of the respondent No.1 and

held that "Hence in our opinion the age of

1 retirement of an employee of the Indian

Institute of Technology is 60 years and not

62 years vide Section 13(2). We, therefore,

respectfully disagree with the decision in

Raja Ram Verma's case. The judgment in Raja

Ram Verma's case (supra) is hereby

overruled".

24. It may be noted in this connection that an

affidavit has been filed by the appellant

before this Court explaining the conditions

under which Mr. Bakre was allowed to

continue beyond 60 years. Since Mr. Bakre

was an Assistant Registrar and was due to

retire on 31.8.1998 the benefit of

increased age was extended to him, pending

clarification about the age of retirement

from the second respondent. The issuance of

clarification was by the second respondent,

the Central Government. The Board of the

appellant decided that six of its Assistant

1 Registrars would have to be superannuated

based on the office memo dated 16.2.2000

issued by the Government of India and

thereupon the Board of Governors decided

that all the six Assistant Registrars

except Mr. Bakre would be allowed to

continue till 31.12.2000. Therefore, Mr.

Bakre was allowed to continue only under

fortuitous circumstances and in the absence

of any proper clarifications by the Central

Government.

25. This Court is of the opinion that the

respondent cannot claim the same right. In

the case of Mr. Bakre no legal right was

extended to him. He was allowed to continue

in the absence of any clarification about

when retirement fell due.

26. The first respondent, who is appearing in

person, has not been able to establish

1 before us that he is a member of teaching

staff or he was treated at par with the

teachers. In that view of the matter his

claim to continue in service after 60 years

of age cannot be sustained and the High

Court came to an erroneous finding in

taking a contrary view.

27. Whether a particular employee has to be

treated at par with the teaching staff is

by and large a decision of the management

of the appellant institute and it is

difficult for this Court to interfere with

the said decision unless it is ex facie

perverse. Here, no such case has been made

out by the first respondent.

28. It has been held by this Court, more than

once, that prescribing the age of

retirement is a managerial function and

such decisions are taken by the management

1 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.

These are the areas where the Court should

not 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 the

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 patently

unreasonable and perverse, the Court has a

bounden duty to interfere and direct the

concerned management to proceed on a

reasonable basis.

29. In B. Bharat Kumar and Ors. Vs. Osmania

University and Ors. - (2007) 11 SCC 58,

1 this Court expressed such a view in

paragraph 19 at page 73 of the judgment and

which is quoted below:

"Learned counsel also argued, to a great extent, the desirability of the age of superannuation being raised to 60 or 62, as the case may be. We again reiterate that it is not for this Court to formulate a policy as to what the age of retirement should be as by doing so we would be trailing into the dangerious area of the wisdom of the legislation. If the State Government in its discretion, which is permissible to it under the scheme, decides to restrict the age and not increase it to 60, or as the case may be, 62, it was perfectly justified in doing so."

30. Similar views have been expressed recently

by another Bench of this Court in Nagaland

Senior Govt. Employees Welfare Association

and Ors. Vs. The State of Nagaland and Ors.

- Civil appeal No. 4955 of 2010 decided on

6.7.2010. In paragraph 40 of the judgment

this Court opined as follows:

"...The rule of retirement on completion of 35 years of service has relevance to employees who have joined service at an age below 25 years and the prescription 2 with regard to retirement at the age of 60 years is in respect of the persons joining service at the age of 25 and thereafter. The above two categories of employees, though performing similar duties and may be identically placed otherwise can still be reasonably understood to form two different classes to whom application of two rules of retirement will not violate Article 14...."

31. This Court must remember that in the

segment of white collared employees,

opportunities are quite few and there is a

burning unemployment problem. Therefore, if

considering the ground realities the

Government fixes 60 years as the age of

retirement for certain categories of

employees, the Court should be very slow

and circumspect before interfering with

such decisions.

32. This Court finds that there is a valid

rationale in allowing teachers and persons

holding posts which are at par with

teachers to work beyond 60 years. The

2 reason for this is that it is very

difficult to find a good faculty of

academicians for doing the job of teachers.

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. This explains why in many

cases even teachers are retained beyond

their extended period of retirement by way

of extension or their services are

continued on the basis of re-employment.

This is done to preserve the intrinsic

value and quality of teaching imparted in

these institutions.

33. Therefore, this Court does not find any

error in the decision of the appellant

whereby the benefit of service upto 62

years is confined to teachers and to those

employees who are on a par with teachers.

2 Thus, in passing the impugned order of

retirement of the first respondent on his

attaining the age of 60 years, the

appellant has not committed any illegality.

34. In this matter a somewhat larger question

cropped up in view of submissions made by

learned Solicitor General, who appeared on

behalf of the Union of India, the second

respondent. The learned Solicitor drew our

attention to Rule 209(6)(iv)(a) of Grants-

in-aid and loan rules. Relying on the said

rules, the learned Solicitor submitted that

the age of retirement of teachers and

others employed in I.I.Ts and I.I.Ms has

been fixed at par with Central Government

employees. The said rule is set out

below:-

"All grantee institutions or organizations which receive more than fifty percent of their recurring expenditure in form of grant-in-aid, should ordinarily formulate terms and conditions of service of their employees which are by and large not 2 higher than those applicable to similar categories of employees in central government. In exceptional cases relaxation may be made in consultation with the Ministry of Finance."

35. Considering the aforesaid stand of the

second respondent, a question of public

importance which arises is whether the

aforesaid rules can be made applicable to

I.I.Ts and I.I.Ms which are Institutes of

National importance. This Court pointedly

asked this question to the learned

Solicitor whether by applying the said

rules independence of institutions like

I.I.Ts and I.I.Ms in matter of employment

of the teachers is sought to be controlled.

Matter of concern for this Court is whether

in the process, the autonomy of these

institutions is diluted by a mindless

bureaucratization of educational

institutions which are to function as

centres of excellence and are Institutions

of National Importance.

2

36. On such query being raised by this Court,

the learned Solicitor wanted some time for

taking instructions and ultimately filed an

additional affidavit on behalf of Union of

India, the second respondent.

37. Reference in this connection may be made to

Entry 63 and 64 of List I of the Seventh

Schedule of the Constitution. Those two

entries are set out:-

"63. The institutions known at the commencement of this Constitution as the Benares Hindu University, the Aligarh Muslim University and the Delhi University; the University established in pursuance of Article 371-E any other institution declared by Parliament by law to be an institution of national importance.

64. Institutions for scientific or technical education financed by the Government of India wholly or in part and declared by Parliament by law to be institutions of national importance."

38. It may be mentioned that the Preamble of

the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 (the

said Act), which is an Act of Parliament,

2 shows that the same has been enacted to

declare certain institutions of technology

to be institutions of National Importance.

Section 2 of the said Act runs as under:-

"2. Whereas the objects of the institutions known as the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, the College of Engineering and Technology, Delhi, the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur and the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras are such as to make them institutions of national importance, it is hereby declared that each such institution is an institution of national importance."

39. It is clear from Section 2 of the aforesaid

Act that I.I.T Kanpur is an Institution of

National Importance. Section 4 of the Act

makes it clear that each of the

institutions mentioned in Section 2 shall

be a body corporate having a perpetual

succession and a common seal.

40. Learned Solicitor submitted that the Union

of India is committed to ensure that these

Institutions of National Importance retain

their autonomy and also continue as centres 2 of excellence and ultimately become a world

class centre of academic pursuit and

research.

41. From the stand of the Union of India, the

second respondent, it appears that under

the said Act, every institute, under

Section 4 of the said Act, shall have a

Board of Governors and under Section 11 of

it the Chairman is to be nominated by the

Visitor. Under Section 9 of the Act the

Visitor is the President of India. It

appears that it is the Board of Governors

constituted under Section 11, which is

responsible for general superintendence,

directions and control of the affairs of

the institute. Under clause (d) of sub-

section (2) of Section 13, the Board of

Governors is authorized to appoint persons

to act as academics and under this power

the Board of Governors appoint other

2 persons to various posts in the institute.

The learned Solicitor further submitted

that the actual composition of the Board of

Governor of I.I.T, Kanpur consists mainly

of academician and educationists.

42. In the affidavit, disclosure about the

composition of the Board of Governors,

which has been made is as follows:-

"a) Chairman - Prof. M. Anandakrishnan

b) Member, ex-officio - Director (Prof. Sanjay Dhande)

c) Member -

- Prof. R.S. Nirjhar, Vice-Chancellor, Gautam Buddha University *(UP Govt. nominee)

- Shri Aman Kumar Singh, Secretary to Chief Minister (Chattisgarh nominee)

d) Member (4 persons having special knowledge to be nominated by the Council):

- Prof. D.V. Singh, Former Vice-chancellor, University of Roorkee.

- Prof. Rajan Harshe, Vice-Chancellor, Allahabad University.

- Shri Ashok Thakur, Additional Sec. GOI

- Shri N.K. Sinha, Joint Secretary, GOI

e) Members nominated by Senate:

- Prof. I.B. Dhariyal 2

- Prof. Rajiv Shekhar"

43. Under Section 31 of the Act the Central

Government may by a notification in the

official gazette establish a Central Board

to be called the Council and in the Council

the Minister incharge of technical

education of the Central Government shall

be the ex-officio Chairman.

44. From the list of the re-constituted Council

of I.I.Ts it appears that Chairman of all

the I.I.Ts, namely, I.I.T Bombay, I.I.T

Delhi, I.I.T Guwahati, I.I.T Kanpur, I.I.T

Kharagpur, I.I.T Madras, I.I.T Roorkee are

members of the said Council. Most of them

are professors or academicians. The list of

the aforesaid re-constituted Council is set

out below:-

"List of Members of the re-constituted Council of Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs)

2 Name Provision in the Act

Shri Kapil Sibal Chairman of Ex-officio Hon'ble Minister (HRD) the Council of [Section 31(2)(a)]] IITs Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Member Ex-officio Chairman, [Section 31(2)(b)]] BoG, IIT Bombay Shri R.P. Agrawal, Member - do - Chairman, BoG, IIT Delhi Dr. R.P. Singh, Chairman, Member - do - BoG, IIT Guwahati Prof. M. Anandakrishnan, Member - do - Chairman, BoG, IIT Kanpur Shri B. Muthuraman, Member - do - Chairman, BoG, IIT Kharagpur Dr. R. Chidambaram, Member - do - Chairman, BoG, IIT Madras Shri Ashok Bhatnagar, Member - do - Chairman, BoG, IIT Roorkee Prof. Devang V. Khakhar, Member Ex-officio Director, (Section 31(2)(c)] IIT Bombay Prof. Surendra Prasad, Member - do - Director, IIT Delhi Prof. Gautam Barua, Member - do - Director, IIT Guwahati Prof. S.G. Dhande, Member - do - Director, IIT Kanpur Prof. Damodar Acharya, Member - do - Director, IIT Kharagpur Prof. M.S. Ananth, Member - do -

Director, IIT Madras Dr. S.C. Saxena, Member - do - Director, IIT Roorkee Prof. Sukhdev Thorat, Member Ex-officio Chairman, University (Section 31(2)(d)] Grants Commission Prof. Samir K. Member Ex-officio Brahmachari, (Section 31(2)(e)] 3 Director General (DG), Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Member Ex-officio Chairman, (Section 31(2)(f)] Council of Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore Prof. P. Balaram, Member Ex-officio Director, [Section 31(2)(g)] Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore Dr. S.S. Mantha, Member [Section 31(2)(i)] Chairman, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)

Prof. C.N.R.Rao, Member [Section 31(2)(j)] Chairman, (term upto Scientific Advisory 5.9.2012) Council to the Prime Minister

Prof. C.S. Seshadri, - do - - do - Director, Chennai Mathematical Institute

Prof. Sabyasachi - do - - do - Bhattacharya, Ex-Director, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Mumbai

Dr. Kota Harinarayan, - do - - do - Chairman, Research Council of Central Scientific Instruments Organization (CSIO), National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore Shri Tarun Das, - do - - do - Chief Mentor, Confederation of Indian

3 Industry, Gurgaon Smt. Vasanthi Stanley, Member [Section 31(2)(k)] MP, Rajya Sabha (co-terminus) Shri Deepender Singh - do - - do - Hooda, MP, Lok Sabha Shri Janardhana Swamy, - do - - do - MP, Lok Sabha Smt. Vibha Puri Das, Representative [Section 31(2)(h)] Secretary, of the Deptt. of Higher Ministry of Education Human Resource Development Ms. Sushma Nath, Representative - do - Secretary, of the Department of Ministry of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance Finance

Shri R. Chandrasekhar, Representative - do - Secretary, of any other Department of Information Central Technology Government Ministry Shri Ashok Thakur, Secretary, [Section 31(3)] Additional Secretary IIT Council (HE), Ministry of Human Resource Development, Deptt. of Higher Education

45. Under Section 33 of the Act it is the duty

of the council to coordinate the activities

of all the institutes and to perform all

the functions which are specified under

Section 33(2) of the Act.

3 46. Relying on the aforesaid provision of the

Act and the re-constituted Council of the

I.I.Ts, the learned Solicitor submitted,

and in our view rightly, that all major

decision making exercise has been left in

the hands of the re-constituted Council

which is predominantly composed of

academicians.

47. It appears from the disclosures made before

us that the Council in its 40th meeting held

on 19.10.2009 has constituted a committee

under the Chairmanship of Dr. Anil

Kakodkar, Chairman, Board of Governors,

I.I.T Bombay "for suggesting a roadmap for

the autonomy and the future of the I.I.Ts

as world class institutions for research

and higher learning". Pursuant to the said

resolution in the 40th meeting of the

Council, a Committee has been constituted

by the Ministry of Human Resource

3 Development, Government of India by a

notification dated 3.2.2010. The prefatory

part of the said notification is as

follows:-

"In the 40th meeting of Council of IITs held under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble HRM on 19th October, 2009 (refer minutes issued vide F. No. 19-3/2009-TS. 1 dated 24th November, 2009), it was decided that a Committee, comprising Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, BoG, IIT Bombay and four other members to be nominated by him, may be constituted for suggesting a roadmap for the autonomy and the future of the IITs as world class institutions for research and higher learning.

2. Accordingly, it has been decided to constitute a Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, BoG, IIT Bombay to suggest a roadmap for the autonomy and future of the IITs. Composition of the Committee will be as under:"

48. And the terms of reference of the Committee

are as under:-

"The Terms of Reference of the Committee are as follows:

3 1. To suggest a road-map for strengthening Financial, Administrative and Academic autonomy of the IITs;

2. The issue of autonomy is closely linked with the capacity of institutions to raise their own resources including through increase in fees in the IITs albeit in a gradual manner. While doing so interest of the weaker sections of the society could be taken care of.

The committee is to suggest a "means- blind system" wherein scholarships are provided to the deserving, and a system of education loans dovetailed into it. For the students who continue to research and take up teaching assignments as a career, a system of interest, loan scheme could be explored;

3. The Committee to suggest ways and means to retain/attract top B.Tech students within the IIT system and outside to Post Graduate and Ph. D programmes. Institutes should be incentivised by way of higher funding based upon the number of Post Graduate student enrolled and number of Ph. Ds awarded each year;

4. The Committee could consider the issue of faculty induction and development. Measures to improve the strength of IIT faculty may be suggested for adoption and implementation;

5. To suggest a self primed system within the IITs to achieve the optimal level of intake of students each year (UG and PG), which but for the MHRD initiated OSC expansion programme has remained stagnant. The Committee could explore the possibility of releasing funds to the Institute on per student basis to incentivise growth;

3

6. To suggest means to raise the resources/corpus of the IITs through research project from the Government, Industry, Consultancy, Donations from alumni, etc., and to explore the possibility of matching grants from the Ministry;

7. During the XI Plan period, the IITs have been in an expansive mode in that it doubled its numbers from 7 to

15. The Committee to take stock of the present expansion programme and also suggest the future course of action in terms of inclusion, expansion and excellence in the XII Plan period and beyond;

8. The Committee will also look into possible synergies that could be developed from not only interaction and collaboration amongst the IITs, e.g., consortium of IITs to take up research projects etc., but also linking up with other national Institutes like IIMs, IISERs, IISc., IITs, NITs, etc. The Committee will also look into the role that IITs have been playing and could play in the future to increase its role as a human resource and technology provider in support of inclusive national development in a rapidly developing/growing economy; and

9. The Committee would also review a few similar exercises that have taken place elsewhere in the world to understand the process involved to arrive at credible recommendations. For this purpose, the Committee could invite a few eminent leaders from some of the successful institutions for discussions and advice. The Committee would also consult different stakeholders, e.g., IIT Management, Faculty, Alumni, Industry, S&T agencies, Technical Education experts, etc. The Committee may also take into account Prof. P. Rama Rao Committee recommendations and others while 3 working out a road-map for IITs to scale new heights."

49. The learned Solicitor further argued

relying on a communication dated 22.7.2010

that in order to minimize the Government's

interference in the functioning of the

I.I.Ts, it has been decided that the

employees of the I.I.Ts instead of

addressing their grievance directly to the

Ministry or directly to the Visitor should

refer their grievances or representations

within the institute and institute may

evolve a procedure for redressing grievance

and appeals of such employees so that the

Ministry does not have to intervene. The

purpose of issuing the said communication,

which has been disclosed in para 3 thereof,

is set out below:-

"I shall be grateful if all references to the Ministry are sent in the rarest of cases. This will go a long way in helping the Division to discharge its 3 responsibilities more efficiently and at the same time strengthen the autonomy issues of the institutes."

50. The learned Solicitor also argued that the

Council in its 39th meeting dated 28.1.2009

recommended that the age of superannuation

of the Directors of I.I.T should be

enhanced to 70 years and the age of

superannuation for faculty members should

be enhanced to 65 years. It has also been

brought to our notice that the Visitor of

the Institute, President of India, has

approved the said proposal for making

suitable amendment in the statutes of

I.I.T. The approval of the Visitor for

making suitable amendments in the statutes

of I.I.T has also been disclosed before

this Court and in the communication dated

20.7.2010 on behalf of the second

respondent it has been made clear as

follows:-

3

"It has also been noticed that many of the provisions contained in the Statutes of IITs have become obsolete or are not updated. You are advised to initiate action to update the provisions of the Statutes. The Statutes of IIT Roorkee which are available on the website of IIT Roorkee could be used as a model for updating the Statutes."

51. The learned Solicitor also brought to our

notice that the Government of India,

Ministry of Human Resource Development has

already set up on 29.8.2008 a Committee

under the Chairmanship of Professor

Goverdhan Mehta and five others to consider

the revision of pay scales of the faculty

and scientific staff of Central Technical

Institutes and Professor Goverdhan Mehta

Committee has on 7.02.2009 submitted its

report regarding revision in pay and

pursuant to such report of the Goverdhan

Mehta Committee, the Government of India,

Ministry of Human Resource Development has

on 18.8.2009 and 16.9.2009 decided to

3 revise the pay of teaching and members of

other staff of centrally funded

institutions. The attention of this Court

has been drawn to the fact that the

revision which has been approved by the

Ministry is higher than the one recommended

by the Goverdhan Mehta Committee. In the

forwarding letter given by the said

committee, the Chairman of the Pay

Committee opined as follows:-

"The Pay Committee is of the considered opinion that the acceptance of the recommendations would attract and retain outstanding academic talent in the field of teaching in technical and professional institutions. It would also help in the emergence of India as a major player in the world of Science and Technology."

52. From the materials which have been

disclosed before this Court in the

additional affidavit filed by the second

respondent, this Court is of the view that

autonomy of those institutes is not being

diluted. On the other hand an attempt is 4 made by the Government of India to improve

the academic ambience of these institutes

by recommending extension of age of

retirement of the Director of the Institute

and of members of the academic faculty.

Attempt has also been made to attract the

best talent by a progressive revision of

the pay scale. From the report of Professor

Mehta Committee some portions are excerpted

below and which would show that relevant

aspects of strengthening the autonomy of

the institute coupled with improving the

performance of the institute as a centre of

excellence has been engaging the attention

of the Government of India. Those key

concerns addressed in the report are set

out below:-

"1.5 The New Challenges

The key, therefore, lies in the expansion

- more than ever before- of our higher education base, particularly of science and technology and a better societal context connect. We must, therefore, convert this potential of becoming a 4 developed society and a leading player in World affair in the 21st Century into a reality - and do it real fast. We need many more quality institutions of global academic standing with the highest possible standards in Science, Technology and Management. And also, we need to expand the intake of the existing institutions, to provide opportunities and access to more students, especially from the socially challenged sections of the society.

Recent upheavals in the world economy have underscored once again and more urgently the need for investing large resources into quality higher education so as to provide a platform for accelerated innovations, developing cutting edge and sustainable technologies to take care of our emerging needs and also to play a more significant role in the recovery of the world economy.

1.10 What needs to be done?

As is obvious from the above, teaching institutions like the IIT, IIM, NIT etc. need to offer, as a first step, better pay scales. And it is not just the scales of pay but a whole package of financial incentives, allowances and other benefits that needs to be offered to faculty members, more specifically to make it attractive at the entry level.

However, it may also be recognized that better `pay package' though essential may not be sufficient for attracting competent persons to the realm of teaching and academia. Institutions may also have to offer better research support and facilities.

Institutions also need to create and strengthen more research friendly environment and foster creativity in order to attract new entrants in to the portals of the academic world and also to retain the existing faculty.

4 Additionally, institutions need to devise robust instruments of peer assessment to recognize and reward outstanding merit among the members of the faculty."

53. In view of such disclosure of materials,

this Court is satisfied that the autonomy

of these institutes is preserved and they

are structurally built up as centres of

academic excellence and the concern of the

Court has been answered and satisfied to a

large extent.

54. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. However,

this Court finds that the first respondent

had to stay in the quarter for some time

more than the scheduled period which is

permissible under the Rules and the

appellant has charged penal rent for the

same. If the first respondent makes a

suitable representation within six weeks,

from the date of receiving a copy of this

judgment, for reducing the amount which has

been charged as penal rent from him, the 4 appellant will consider and dispose of the

same by a speaking order within two months

thereafter in accordance with law but by

taking a sympathetic view.

55. The appeal is allowed. The order of the

High Court is set aside. However, there

will be no order as to costs.

.......................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

.......................J. New Delhi (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) November 24, 2010

4