Facts
The NCERT’s Regulation 41(a) provided that confirmed members of its academic staff would serve until age 65; the provision was amended by notification dated 12 June 2018.
Source reference: para. 4, 9The respondent, a Deputy Librarian, challenged a subsequent NCERT notification dated 14 December 2022 fixing the retirement age of Assistant and Deputy Librarians at 62, contending that they were academic staff and that the notification impermissibly displaced Regulation 41(a).
Source reference: para. 3–5, 12–18The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed his application, quashed the 2022 notification and directed that his superannuation age be treated as 65.
Source reference: para. 25–26The NCERT challenged that decision by writ petition.
Source reference: para. 27Issues
1. Whether Assistant Librarians and Deputy Librarians are part of the NCERT’s “academic staff” for the purposes of Regulation 41(a)
Source reference: para. 392. Whether the NCERT could fix their retirement age at 62 by notification, notwithstanding Regulation 41(a)
Source reference: para. 39, 48, 53–543. Whether the UGC communications relied upon by the NCERT applied to, or bound, the NCERT
Source reference: para. 39, 55–60Law Applied
Regulation 37 classifies NCERT staff as academic, administrative or ancillary, while Regulation 41(a) fixes the superannuation age of confirmed academic staff; under Rule 40, the Executive Committee, with prior Government of India approval, has authority to frame and amend regulations, whereas the Establishment Committee is recommendatory.
Source reference: para. 22–23, 38, 40An executive notification cannot alter a binding regulatory provision without amending the regulation through the competent procedure.
Source reference: para. 48, 53–54UGC communications are not binding on NCERT merely because NCERT has followed UGC patterns; their application requires a binding legal or regulatory basis.
Source reference: para. 55–58The Court distinguished *Krishan Gopal v. Union of India*, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7385, and *Jitendra Singh Naruka v. University of Delhi*, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5893, as cases concerning parity with teaching staff, rather than whether librarians formed part of academic staff under NCERT’s regulations.
Source reference: para. 45–47Reasoning
The Court found that the NCERT’s own pleadings, notifications and internal file notings treated Assistant and Deputy Librarians as academic staff, notwithstanding that they were not necessarily classroom teachers.
Source reference: para. 42–44Regulation 41(a), as amended to prescribe retirement at 65, therefore applied to them.
Source reference: para. 48The 14 December 2022 notification merely fixed their age at 62 and did not amend Regulation 41(a); it could not, as an executive instruction, displace the regulation.
Source reference: para. 48, 50–54Nor did the UGC or Ministry communications relied on by the NCERT establish a binding requirement applicable to NCERT.
Source reference: para. 55–65Holding
The Court held that Assistant and Deputy Librarians were part of NCERT’s academic staff and were entitled to superannuate at age 65 under Regulation 41(a).
It upheld the Tribunal’s decision quashing the 14 December 2022 notification and dismissed the writ petition.
Source reference: para. 66–67Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
Ordinance XI of the Delhi University1
University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications Required For The Appointment And Career Advancement Of Teachers In Universities And Institutions Affiliated To It) Regulations, 20001
Original Court PDF
National Council Of Educational Research And Training (Ncert).Through Its SecretaryvsS. Nagaraja
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
