Abolition of post due to closure of course terminates right to continue service until age of superannuation.

The Appellants (Malnad College of Engineering) challenged an order of a learned Single Judge which quashed the termination of two Professors, Dr. M. K. Ravishankar and Dr. K. P. Ravikumar.

The Petitioners/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 Board of Governors decided to close the department.

This closure received "No Objection" from Visveshwaraiah Technological University (VTU) and approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

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

The Single Judge had ruled that the faculty must continue until the age of superannuation (65 years) as per AICTE Regulations, regardless of the course closure.

Whether the employees of a Technical Institution can be terminated on the ground that the VTU and AICTE had approved the closure of the course in which they were rendering services?

Whether the Petitioners have a legal right to continue in service until the age of superannuation (65 years) as per AICTE 2019 Regulations even after the abolition of their posts?

The Court considered the AICTE (Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Minimum Qualifications) Regulations of 2010 and 2019, specifically Regulation 2.12, which prescribes the age of superannuation as 65 years.

It also examined the legal principle regarding the "abolition of posts," noting that a right to employment is co-extensive with the existence of the post.

Furthermore, the Court distinguished between "aided" and "unaided" departments, noting that appointments in aided departments must follow specific government-approved selection procedures and cannot be filled by automatic absorption.

The Division Bench found that the Single Judge erred by focusing solely on the prescribed age of superannuation while ignoring the legal consequence of the abolition of posts.

The Court noted that the closure of the Automobile Engineering Department was validly executed with the necessary regulatory approvals from VTU and AICTE, and these approvals were not challenged by the Petitioners.

Since the department was self-financing and the specific posts against which the Petitioners were appointed no longer existed, their contractual and legal right to remain in service extinguished.

The Court rejected the argument for automatic absorption into the Mechanical Engineering Department because that department was "aided," and any appointment there required a fresh selection process and government approval.

The mere existence of a superannuation age in AICTE Regulations does not guarantee employment if the underlying post is abolished due to the closure of a department.

It held that the Petitioners have no legal right to continue in service after the valid closure of their department and the subsequent abolition of their posts.

However, citing equity and the Petitioners' long service since 1997, the Court exercised its discretion to award financial compensation.

The Appellant College was directed to pay each Petitioner ₹40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs) as financial assistance within four weeks, in addition to any statutory dues.