Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul allowed the appeal filed by Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) and set aside the Single Judge’s order that had extended to certain officials the benefits of superannuation at 65 years and inclusion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) applicable to “teachers.”
The Court held that the Single Judge’s decision was based on an unnotified and withdrawn 2007 Ordinance, which was never approved by the Visitor under the IGNOU Act, 1985. The Court observed:
“The learned Single Judge has relied upon an Ordinance assumed to have been promulgated by IGNOU in 2007, whereas, in fact, the Ordinance was never promulgated and was withdrawn by IGNOU itself.”
The Bench further held that the respondents could not be regarded as “teachers” within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the IGNOU Act and that their retirement age remained 62 years, not 65.
Facts
The respondents were serving as Joint Director, Deputy Director, Additional Director, and Senior Regional Director in IGNOU’s Regional Services Division. Upon their superannuation, they sought to be recognized as “teachers” or, alternatively, as “academic staff” entitled to the same benefits as teachers—particularly the extended retirement age (65) and the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) applicable to teachers.
They relied upon an alleged 2007 Ordinance that purportedly redesignated certain academic posts in IGNOU’s Regional Services Division as “teachers” and extended to them all corresponding benefits.
However, IGNOU argued that the Ordinance was never approved or notified and had been expressly withdrawn following directions from the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD).
The Single Judge had ruled in favour of the employees, holding that they were entitled to the same benefits as teachers. IGNOU challenged that order before the Division Bench.
Issues
- Whether the respondents could be treated as “teachers” within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the IGNOU Act, 1985.
- Whether the 2007 Ordinance redesignating certain academic posts as “teachers” was valid and enforceable.
- Whether the respondents were entitled to superannuate at 65 and to benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme for teachers.
- Whether the Single Judge erred in relying upon an affidavit introducing new grounds after eleven years without notice to the appellants.
Petitioners’ (IGNOU’s) Arguments
IGNOU, represented by senior counsel, contended that the 2007 Ordinance was never valid, as it was neither approved by the Visitor (the President of India) as required under Section 25(3)–(4) of the IGNOU Act, nor published in the Official Gazette under Section 40. The University itself had informed the MHRD in writing that the proposal was withdrawn, as reflected in communications dated 11 June 2010 and 10 June 2010, which clearly recorded that the Ministry had declined approval due to “wider policy and financial implications.”
It was argued that Statute 17(9)—which prescribes a retirement age of 65 years—applies only to “teachers” and not to “other academic staff.” The posts held by the respondents fell under the category of “other academic staff,” whose retirement age was 62 years.
Further, the University asserted that the learned Single Judge had based the ruling on an unverified affidavit filed after more than a decade, without giving IGNOU or the Ministry an opportunity to respond.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents argued that their work—designing study material, evaluating students, and coordinating distance education programmes—was equivalent to teaching functions under the IGNOU’s academic framework. They claimed that the 2007 Ordinance and earlier circulars of 1992 and 1994 treated them as part of the academic cadre, extending them the same benefits as teachers.
They also relied on the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) applicable to teachers, asserting that it had been applied uniformly to “academic staff” in the past. Moreover, they referred to the amendment to Statute 17(9) in 2017, which enhanced the retirement age for teachers to 65 years, arguing that this benefit should extend to them as well.
They further alleged that the 2007 Ordinance had been effectively implemented and that its withdrawal lacked legal sanctity as no formal revocation had been published in the Gazette.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed the IGNOU Act, 1985, specifically Sections 2(p), 5(1)(vi), 24(d), 25, 30(1), and 40, as well as Statutes 17 and 26, which define the process of making Ordinances and the requirement of Visitor approval.
Section 2(p) defines “teachers” as professors, readers, lecturers, and other persons designated as such by validly promulgated Ordinances. The Court emphasized that no Ordinance can acquire force unless it satisfies the procedural mandates of Section 40, i.e., publication in the Gazette and laying before Parliament.
The Court found that the 2007 Ordinance, though approved in IGNOU’s 90th and 91st Board of Management meetings, was never assented to by the Visitor and thus never became law. On the contrary, communications from MHRD (letters dated 1–2 April 2009, 31 March 2010, and 11 June 2010) made it clear that the proposal was declined and subsequently withdrawn.
Hence, there was no legal basis to treat the respondents as “teachers.” The age of superannuation for teachers under Statute 17(9) could not be imported to “other academic staff,” who continued to retire at 62.
Precedent Analysis
The Court considered several precedents on statutory interpretation and approval procedures in university administration:
- University of Delhi v. Raj Singh (1995) 5 SCC 730 – Emphasized that UGC regulations and statutory university provisions must be read harmoniously, and administrative instructions cannot override statute.
- State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath (1989) 1 SCC 7 – Held that any change in statutory service conditions must follow the formal legislative process.
- Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj (2015) 6 SCC 363 – Reaffirmed that statutory universities are bound by their governing statutes and that any deviation without approval of the Visitor or Chancellor is void.
These authorities were invoked to reinforce that an unapproved ordinance cannot confer enforceable rights, and service benefits must strictly flow from valid statutory provisions.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench found that the Single Judge’s reliance on the withdrawn 2007 Ordinance was misplaced. The additional affidavit, introducing it after 11 years, was never taken on record through judicial order, and the respondents’ new claims based on that affidavit were procedurally defective.
The Court observed:
“The learned Single Judge proceeded on the premise that the 2007 Ordinance was validly promulgated, when in fact it had been withdrawn by the University itself after MHRD’s disapproval.”
Further, the Court rejected the argument that academic staff performing distance education functions could be deemed teachers. It held that statutory classification prevails over functional similarity, and courts cannot expand statutory categories to confer benefits.
On the respondents’ alternative claim that Statute 17(9) was amended to include “teachers/academic staff,” the Court referred to the MHRD letter dated 15 December 2017, confirming that even after amendment, the statute referred only to “teachers,” not “teachers/academic staff.”
Hence, the respondents’ claim of parity failed on both factual and legal grounds.
Conclusion
The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 12 December 2023, and dismissed the writ petition. It held that:
- The 2007 Ordinance was never validly promulgated or notified and was expressly withdrawn.
- The respondents cannot be classified as “teachers” within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the IGNOU Act.
- The age of superannuation for respondents remains 62 years, and they are not entitled to the Career Advancement Scheme for teachers.
- The Single Judge’s reliance on belatedly introduced materials was procedurally impermissible.
Implications
This judgment clarifies the scope of statutory designations under university law, reinforcing that administrative circulars or withdrawn drafts cannot alter the service conditions established by statute. It underscores that the Visitor’s approval and Gazette publication are indispensable for validity of any Ordinance.
The ruling has wider implications for all centrally funded universities, ensuring that designations and benefits are governed strictly by statutory norms, preventing administrative overreach or retrospective claims based on unnotified drafts.
FAQs
1. Can “academic staff” at IGNOU claim the same benefits as “teachers”?
No. The Court held that only those designated as “teachers” under validly notified Ordinances can claim benefits like higher retirement age and CAS.
2. Was the 2007 Ordinance ever valid?
No. It was never approved by the Visitor and was formally withdrawn after the MHRD’s objection, making it unenforceable.
3. What retirement age applies to IGNOU’s academic staff?
Academic staff continue to retire at 62 years, while teachers retire at 65 years, as per Statute 17(9).
