Abolition of a post due to closure of a department terminates the right to continue in service.

The Appellants (Malnad College of Engineering) challenged a Single Judge order which had set aside the termination of two Professors (the Respondents).

The Respondents were faculty members in the Automobile Engineering Department, a self-financing (unaided) wing of the College.

Due to declining admissions and financial unviability, the College Board resolved to close the department.

This closure was approved by the Visveshwaraiah Technological University (VTU) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

Consequently, the College issued relieving letters to the Respondents on 11.09.2023.

The Single Judge had ruled that despite the course closure, the faculty must be continued until the age of 65 as per AICTE Regulations, suggesting they be accommodated in the aided Mechanical Engineering Department.

Whether the petitioners have a legal right to continue in service until the age of superannuation (65 years) as per AICTE Regulations 2019, despite the abolition of the posts following the closure of their department?

The court examined the AICTE (Degree) Regulations of 2010 and 2019, specifically Regulation 2.12, which prescribes the age of superannuation as 65 years.

It balanced these service conditions against the general principle of administrative law and service jurisprudence that the right to hold a post exists only as long as the post itself exists.

The court also noted the distinction between "aided" and "unaided" departments under the Karnataka Grant-in-Aid Rules, noting that appointments to aided posts require government approval and a formal selection process.

The High Court found that the Single Judge erred by focusing solely on the "age of superannuation" in the AICTE Regulations while ignoring the fact of "post abolition".

The Court reasoned that since the Department of Automobile Engineering was validly closed with approvals from VTU and AICTE—decisions which were not challenged by the Respondents—the posts occupied by the Respondents ceased to exist.

A teacher cannot claim a contractual or legal right to continue in employment once the underlying post is abolished.

Furthermore, the court held that the Respondents could not be automatically "adjusted" into the Mechanical Engineering Department because that department is "aided" by the government; filling those vacancies requires a fresh recruitment process and state approval, which cannot be bypassed via lateral transfer of unaided staff.

The Court held that the Respondents had no right to remain in service after the valid closure of their department and the abolition of their posts.

However, invoking principles of equity and considering their long service since 1997, the Court directed the Appellant College to pay each Respondent a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Forty Lakhs) as financial assistance for the loss of their jobs, in addition to any statutory dues, within four weeks.