1982 (3) TMI 266 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the termination of service of the 1st respondent.
2. Interpretation of sections 3 and 6 of the Bihar Private Medical Colleges (Taking Over) Act, 1978.
3. Authority of the State Government and the Screening Committee regarding the age of superannuation.

Summary:

1. Validity of the termination of service of the 1st respondent:
The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal against the Patna High Court's judgment which had quashed the termination of the 1st respondent's service and directed that he continue until the age of 62 years. The High Court had held that the obligation to continue the 1st respondent in service until 62 years devolved on the State Government upon taking over the Magadh Medical College.

2. Interpretation of sections 3 and 6 of the Bihar Private Medical Colleges (Taking Over) Act, 1978:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court misinterpreted the provisions of sections 3 and 6 of the Act. Section 3(3) provided for the devolution of liabilities and obligations on the State Government, but section 6 specifically dealt with the terms of employment of the teaching staff. Section 6(1) stated that all staff would cease to be employees of the College body from the date of the notified order and would continue on an ad hoc basis until a decision was made under subsections (3) and (4). Thus, the 1st respondent's original contract did not devolve on the State Government; instead, he became an ad hoc employee.

3. Authority of the State Government and the Screening Committee regarding the age of superannuation:
The Screening Committee recommended retiring teachers beyond the age of 58 years, subject to reappointment if no qualified substitutes were available. The Supreme Court held that the Committee had the authority to make such recommendations under section 6(2), which included determining "rank, pay, allowances, and other conditions of service." Furthermore, section 6(3) empowered the State Government to redetermine these conditions, including the age of superannuation. The State Government's decision to terminate the services of teachers who had attained the age of 58 years was within its power, and the 1st respondent, being an ad hoc employee, could not claim the right to continue until 62 years.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the writ petition of the 1st respondent. The termination of the 1st respondent's service was deemed valid. No order as to costs was made.