Statutory Compliance for Sanctioned Posts Prevails Over Functional Parity and De Facto Administrative Practices

The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer (Research in Plant Pathology) at Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (BCKV) in 1994 and was primarily stationed under the All India Co-ordinated Research Project (AICRP)

Although he was declared a permanent staff of the University in 2011, the State contended his appointment was project-linked and lacked prior State sanction under Section 33A of the BCKV Act, 1974

In 2023, the petitioner sought a transfer to a substantive post in the University’s Department of Plant Pathology to avail himself of the enhanced retirement age of 65 (applicable to regular University teachers) instead of 62 (applicable to AICRP scientists)

The State Government refused to approve the transfer and the enhanced superannuation age, leading the petitioner to challenge the orders dated November 10, 2023, and January 17, 2024

1. Whether an employee appointed under a research project (AICRP) can be equated to a regular "teacher" of the University for the purpose of extending the retirement age to 65 years.

2. Whether the University has the autonomous power to transfer a project-linked employee to a substantive sanctioned post without the prior concurrence or approval of the State Government under Section 33A of the BCKV Act, 1974.

Section 33A of the Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya Act, 1974, which mandates prior approval of the State Government for appointments to posts borne on the University establishment

Definition of "teacher" under Section 2(16) of the Act, which includes persons conducting research, but held this must be read harmoniously with the appointment procedures

Principle from Taylor v. Taylor (1875), asserting that when a statute prescribes a specific mode of action, it must be followed strictly

Doctrine that there can be no estoppel against statute, meaning administrative practice cannot override clear statutory requirements

The court reasoned that while the petitioner performed duties (research and teaching) similar to regular teachers, the source and character of his appointment were determinative

The AICRP is a tripartite arrangement with ICAR providing 75% funding, making it a distinct administrative and funding stream from the University’s regular establishment

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that State approval is unnecessary for transfers to already "sanctioned" posts; it clarified that Section 33A requires State approval for the appointment of a specific person to a post to maintain fiscal control

Despite the University’s support for the petitioner and historical instances of similar transfers, the court held that "functional integration does not imply legal absorption"

Since the petitioner’s initial induction lacked the mandatory State sanction required for regular University cadre, he remained an AICRP scientist governed by different superannuation rules

Movement from a project-linked post to a substantive University post constitutes a fresh induction/absorption requiring State approval, not a collateral transfer. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to the enhanced retirement age of 65 years. The writ petition was dismissed, and all impugned orders were upheld