-
by sayum
07 July 2026 3:12 PM
“Fraternity is never asserted but must be safeguarded — even in the bylanes of public administration”, Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment , set aside the denial of enhanced retirement age to a non-teaching staff member of a State-aided University in West Bengal, holding that excluding teaching experience from institutions outside West Bengal is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The decision overturns the Calcutta High Court Division Bench ruling and significantly interprets the scope of “State-aided university or college” in the Notification dated 24.02.2021, thereby ensuring uniform treatment of public service experience across Indian states.
The appellant, Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar, had served as teaching staff at Cachar College, Silchar (Assam) from 1991 for 16 years before joining Burdwan University in West Bengal in 2007. He continued in West Bengal’s education sector for 14 years, eventually promoted to Senior Secretary, Faculty Council for PG Studies in Science.
In 2021, the State Government of West Bengal issued a Notification extending the retirement age to 65 years for certain non-teaching posts provided the employee had 10 years of continuous teaching experience in any State-aided university or college. The University and the State denied the benefit to the appellant, contending that his 10 years of teaching experience was not within West Bengal, and thus did not qualify under the Notification.
A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowed the appellant’s writ petition, holding in his favour. However, this was overturned by a Division Bench which held that the term “any State-aided university” must be read restrictively as per amended definitions under the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 — thus confining eligibility to those with teaching experience only within West Bengal. The appellant challenged this interpretation before the Supreme Court.
Whether the expression “any State-aided university or college” under the Notification dated 24.02.2021 includes institutions outside West Bengal?
The key question was the interpretation of the term “any” in the context of the eligibility clause. The respondents argued for a restrictive reading based on amended definitions in the 1976 Act which, post-2017 amendment, defined “State-aided University” as one constituted by a West Bengal State Act and receiving aid from the West Bengal Government.
However, the Supreme Court decisively rejected this narrow interpretation, stating:
“The purpose of using the phrase ‘in any State-aided University or Government-aided College’ is only to denote that the employer… must be an aided institution as against institutions which do not receive aid.” [Para 18]
It held that the use of “any” is inherently inclusive, and the Notification’s object was never to exclude valid public teaching experience from outside West Bengal.
Whether such exclusion is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
The Court came down strongly against executive parochialism, terming such policies as “artificial classifications” without rational nexus:
“There is no purpose or object in confining such experience only through teaching in university or college in West Bengal… It is a classic case of a suspect classification intended to sub-serve only parochial interests and nothing more.” [Para 24]
It invoked Article 14 (equality before law) and condemned the move as unconstitutional, asserting:
“Extension of the retirement date, dependent on past experience of teaching in a university or a college located in West Bengal alone has no object to subserve… and is discriminatory.” [Para 20]
Statutory Interpretation – Should definitions in parent statute control the Notification?
The State argued that the 2021 Notification must be interpreted in line with the definitions introduced via 2017 amendment to the 1976 Act. However, the Court clarified that definitions under Section 2 are subject to context:
“All definitions in statutes generally begin with qualifying words... unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.” [Para 26, quoting Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Fraser and Ross]
The Court further held: “We have examined and concluded that the text, the context, the purpose as well as the object of providing ‘continuous teaching experience of 10 years in any university’... is not at all to exclude such experience from outside the State of West Bengal.” [Para 27]
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench judgment dated 13.12.2023.
It quashed the Notification dated 28.06.2023 which denied the benefit of increased retirement age.
It held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the Notification dated 24.02.2021.
The Court awarded Rs. 50,000 as costs to the appellant for the hardship caused.
The Court took a progressive constitutional stance, stating:
“Executive decisions such as these seem minor… but have far reaching consequences. Constitutional courts must… identify such decisions, embedded in the nooks and crannies of public administration and set them aside, for they… trigger similar actions by other States.” [Para 3.1]
This decision by the Supreme Court is a notable affirmation of federal unity, constitutional equality, and interpretive fairness in administrative matters. By overruling narrow, parochial interpretations, the Court emphasized that experience in public institutions anywhere in India must be valued equally, especially when it is the basis for recruitment and continued service within a state.
The ruling not only ensures justice to the appellant but also serves as a landmark precedent for preventing geographically discriminatory policies in public employment, reasserting the core values of the Constitution—equality, fraternity, and national integrity.
Date of Decision: 30 July 2025
