Teachers versus “Other Academic Staff” under the IGNOU Act: Division Bench clarifies that 65-year superannuation and teacher-CAS are confined to “teachers” duly created or redesignated by valid Statute/Ordinance; 2007 draft Ordinance held withdrawn

Teachers versus “Other Academic Staff” under the IGNOU Act: Division Bench clarifies that 65-year superannuation and teacher-CAS are confined to “teachers” duly created or redesignated by valid Statute/Ordinance; 2007 draft Ordinance held withdrawn

Introduction

This commentary analyzes the Delhi High Court Division Bench judgment in Indira Gandhi National Open University and Ors. v. Dr. T.R. Srinivasan and Ors., Citation: 2025 DHC 8801-DB (decided on 6 October 2025), which sets aside a learned Single Judge’s decision that had extended the 65-year age of superannuation and teacher-centric Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) to certain IGNOU Regional Services Division functionaries by treating them as “teachers.”

The appeal raises foundational questions under the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 (the “IGNOU Act”) about:

  • Who is a “teacher” for purposes of superannuation and CAS?
  • Whether the Board of Management’s (BOM) 2007 draft Ordinance (referred to as “Ordinance 16”) ever validly redesignated specified Regional Services Division posts as “teachers”?
  • Whether a 1999 BOM decision broadened Statute 17(9) from “teachers” to “teachers/academic staff”?
  • How far functional similarity to teaching in a distance education context can override explicit statutory categories and procedures?

The parties were:

  • Appellants: IGNOU, its Vice Chancellor (VC), and its Academic Coordination Division.
  • Respondents: Dr. T.R. Srinivasan and three others, holding Regional Services Division posts (Regional/Additional/Joint/Deputy/Senior Regional Director levels); and the Union of India (Ministry of Education, previously MHRD).

Summary of the Judgment

The Division Bench (C. Hari Shankar, J. and Ajay Digpaul, J.) allowed IGNOU’s Letters Patent Appeal and dismissed the underlying writ petition. The Bench held:

  • The learned Single Judge erred in resting relief on a 2007 draft Ordinance said to redesignate specified Regional Services posts as “teachers.” On the record now produced (including VC’s 2010 communications), that draft Ordinance was never promulgated and was withdrawn by IGNOU; it was neither published in the Gazette nor laid before Parliament under Section 40 of the IGNOU Act.
  • Statute 17(9) (retirement age) applies to “teachers” only. The respondents failed to establish any valid Statute/Ordinance that had redesignated their posts as “teachers.”
  • The residuary assertion, that a 1999 BOM decision had already amended Statute 17(9) to read “teachers/academic staff,” was rejected; even in 2017, Statute 17(9) continued to refer only to “teachers,” as evident from the Visitor-approved amendment enhancing the teachers’ retirement age to 65 years.
  • Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) letters dated 23 March 2007 and 19 April 2007 confined the increase in retirement age to those “actually engaged in classroom teaching” on teaching posts; the benefit does not extend to employees merely holding posts “equivalent” to teaching positions.
  • On pleadings and procedure, key “new” grounds and documents were brought through an additional affidavit filed 11 years after the writ was instituted, without leave, and were never taken on record or answered by IGNOU/MHRD—leading to erroneous factual assumptions below.
  • No recovery of amounts already paid pursuant to the Single Judge’s judgment was directed.

Detailed Analysis

I. Statutory and regulatory framework

The Court’s analysis is grounded in a tight statutory scheme:

  • IGNOU Act, 1985:
    • Section 2(f): “Employee” includes “teachers” and “other academic staff.”
    • Section 2(p): “Teachers” means Professors, Readers, Lecturers, and such other persons as may be designated as such by the Ordinances for imparting instruction or for giving guidance/assistance to students.
    • Section 5(1)(vi): Enables instituting professorships, readerships, lectureships, and other academic positions necessary for instruction/material preparation/guidance/evaluation.
    • Section 24(d): Statutes may provide for appointment of teachers and other employees, their emoluments and conditions of service.
    • Section 25(3)-(4): New or amending Statutes require Visitor’s approval; they are not valid without such assent.
    • Section 30(1): Employee contracts must not contravene the Act, Statutes, Ordinances.
    • Section 40: Statutes/Ordinances/Regulations must be published in the Official Gazette and laid before Parliament.
  • IGNOU Statutes:
    • Statute 2(4): VC shall exercise control over affairs of the University and give effect to decisions of all authorities.
    • Statute 7(2)(a): BOM may create teaching and other academic posts and define functions/conditions of service, subject to the Act, Statutes, and Ordinances.
    • Statute 12: Common selection committee composition for teachers and academic staff; procedure to be laid down by Ordinances.
    • Statute 13: Special mode of appointment for teachers/academic staff.
    • Statute 17: Terms and conditions of teachers and other academic staff; inter alia—
      • Statute 17(5): Duties of “every teacher.”
      • Statute 17(9): “All teachers” retirement age (62 until amended to 65 in 2017).
      • Statute 17(12)-(14): Teacher designations and CAS.
    • Statute 18: Terms and conditions for “other employees” (other than teachers and other academic staff).
    • Statute 26(1)-(4): Ordinances are made by BOM and come into effect immediately, but must be submitted to the Visitor within three weeks; Visitor may object/suspend/disallow; decision is final.
  • Executive/Regulatory backdrop:
    • MHRD letters of 23 March 2007 and 19 April 2007: Enhanced superannuation to 65 years strictly for teachers engaged in classroom teaching; expressly excluded other categories, even if “equivalent.”
    • MHRD letter of 31 December 2008: Only three teacher designations—Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor; librarians and physical education personnel excluded from enhanced superannuation.
    • Visitor’s approval dated 15 December 2017: Amended Statute 17(9)(a) to enhance “all teachers” retirement age from 62 to 65 (still using “teachers,” not “teachers/academic staff”).
    • Post 6th/7th CPC: Separate Ordinances issued in 2018 (teachers) and 2020 (academic staff) for CAS, qualifications, duties; different pipelines for “teachers” and “other academic staff.”

II. The 2007 “Ordinance 16” saga: proposed, never promulgated, and withdrawn

The Single Judge anchored relief on a 22 May 2007 BOM-approved draft Ordinance (popularly called “Ordinance 16”) purporting to designate several Regional Services Division positions as “teachers” and apply teacher service conditions (including CAS and superannuation). The Division Bench found this premise untenable on the expanded appellate record:

  • Although the draft was sent to the Ministry on 20 June and 20 July 2007, the MHRD on 1–2 April 2009 advised IGNOU not to implement it due to policy and financial implications.
  • Critically, the VC’s letters dated 8 February 2010, 10 June 2010, and 11 June 2010 confirm that IGNOU withdrew the proposed Ordinance. Under Statute 2(4), the VC implements University decisions—these communications are decisive evidence of withdrawal.
  • There was no Gazette publication or laying before Parliament under Section 40. The Court did not need to resolve whether Statute 26(3) immediate-effect language could overcome such omissions, because the dispositive fact was withdrawal.
  • Subsequently, IGNOU pursued the redesignation route via Statute 17 amendment (as MHRD advised on 31 March 2010), but the Visitor declined approval (letters dated 23 July 2013 and 25 April 2014).

Conclusion: No valid Ordinance or Statute ever redesignated the respondents’ posts as “teachers.”

III. The 1999 BOM meeting claim: “teachers/academic staff” never entered Statute 17(9)

Respondents argued that at the 65th BOM meeting (31 December 1999) Statute 17(9) was amended to cover “teachers/academic staff” (at the then age of 62). The Division Bench rejected this:

  • No evidence of Visitor’s assent under Section 25(3)-(4) or of Statute publication/laying existed.
  • The 15 December 2017 communication expressly shows the pre-amendment text used was “all teachers…62 years”—not “teachers/academic staff.”

Therefore, the foundational Statute for superannuation consistently applied only to “teachers.”

IV. Teachers versus “other academic staff”: distinct statutory categories, distinct consequences

Sections 2(f) and 2(p) of the IGNOU Act explicitly recognize “teachers” and “other academic staff” as separate categories of employees. The Division Bench emphasizes:

  • In a distance education ecosystem, many academic functions resemble teaching. However, where the governing statute draws distinct categories and prescribes distinct gateways (qualifications, designations, modes of appointment), functional overlap cannot override statutory text.
  • Separate post-CPC Ordinances (2018 teachers; 2020 academic staff) codify distinct career pathways, qualifications, duties, and CAS regimes for teachers and “other academic staff.”
  • Appointment letters of respondents described “academic/administrative/promotional” duties; they did not appoint respondents to “teaching positions on regular employment against sanctioned posts.”

Result: Absent a valid Statute/Ordinance redesignating them as “teachers,” respondents remain “other academic staff,” to whom Statute 17(9) does not apply.

V. MHRD’s 2007 clarifications and the 2017 Statute 17(9) amendment

  • MHRD’s 23 March 2007 decision and 19 April 2007 clarification unequivocally limited the 65-year superannuation to those “actually engaged in teaching classes/courses/programmes” in centrally funded institutions; others—even those on “equivalent” posts—were excluded.
  • When the Visitor later approved the 2017 amendment to Statute 17(9), the text continued to apply to “all teachers,” not “academic staff.”

Thus, even if parity once existed at 62 years (per 1992/1994 IGNOU circulars), the 65-year enhancement was always teacher-specific.

VI. Precedents cited

  • Harla v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1951 SC 467: No person can be bound by an unpublished law; due publication is integral to enforceability. The Division Bench references Harla to underscore that mere adoption of an Ordinance at a meeting does not make it law—statutory publication/laying requirements matter.
  • Collector v Raja Ram Jaiswal, (1985) 3 SCC 1: Reinforces the principle that subordinate legislation must comply with prescribed publication/notification procedures to attain legal force.

These authorities fortify the conclusion that the 2007 draft Ordinance never matured into enforceable law.

VII. Pleadings, additional affidavit, and procedural fairness

The Court makes significant observations on procedure:

  • The writ petition’s original grounds relied on Sections 2(p), 5(1)(vi), MHRD’s 23 March 2007 letter, and the 2010 UGC Regulations. Eleven years later, an “additional affidavit” (not by leave and never taken on record) introduced new grounds: reliance on the 2007 draft Ordinance, the alleged 1999 Statute change, and certain circulars.
  • No notice was issued or answer called from IGNOU/MOE to those new grounds; yet, the Single Judge proceeded on assumptions about Ordinance 16’s fate.
  • The Division Bench refrained from remand because the complete correspondence was produced in appeal, arguments were fully heard, and deciding on merits avoided further delay.

VIII. The Court’s legal reasoning distilled

  • Textual primacy: Where the Act/Statutes/Ordinances clearly distinguish “teachers” from “other academic staff,” courts must apply those categories. Functional arguments about distance-education pedagogy cannot displace the statutory scheme.
  • Hierarchy and formality of norms: A BOM-approved draft Ordinance that is neither promulgated, gazetted, laid before Parliament, nor sustained (indeed, expressly withdrawn) cannot serve as a valid basis to alter legal status.
  • Executive clarifications: MHRD’s 2007 communications define the policy purpose and scope of the 65-year rule—to meet teacher shortages—and confine the benefit to those actually teaching on sanctioned teaching posts.
  • Visitor’s gatekeeping role: Changes in Statutes require Visitor’s assent; redesignation of “academic staff” as “teachers” through Statute amendment failed to secure assent. The 2017 Visitor-approved amendment to Statute 17(9) remained confined to “teachers.”
  • Procedural propriety: Relief cannot rest on unpleaded, untested assertions introduced late and without leave.

IX. Impact and implications

1. For IGNOU personnel

  • “Other academic staff” in Regional Services and analogous divisions cannot claim the 65-year retirement age or teacher-CAS merely by asserting functional equivalence. They must point to a valid Statute/Ordinance redesignating their posts as “teachers.”
  • Existing academic staff remain governed by the separate 2020 Academic Staff Ordinance for CAS, qualifications, and duties. The judgment does not curtail benefits available under that specific scheme; it only rejects parity with teacher-specific benefits absent a valid redesignation.
  • No recovery: If any monetary benefits flowed under the Single Judge’s decision, they are protected against clawback.

2. For Central Universities/Open Universities

  • The ruling reinforces strict compliance with statutory pathways (Visitor assent, gazette publication, laying before Parliament) for altering cadres, designations, and superannuation rules.
  • Distance education institutions must resist the temptation to blur “teacher” status through executive circulars or committee reports; formal legislative instruments are indispensable.

3. For litigation practice

  • New factual grounds and documents cannot be smuggled through additional affidavits late in the day without leave and without giving the other side a chance to respond. Courts will correct outcomes based on such untested material.

4. Policy signal

  • If universities perceive inequity for staff who moved from teaching to non-classroom academic roles before 2007, the solution lies in policy/statutory amendments with Visitor approval—not in judicial reclassification.

X. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Teachers vs Other Academic Staff: The IGNOU Act treats these as distinct groups. “Teachers” hold designated teaching titles (Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Professor/Senior Professor). “Other academic staff” perform academic functions but are not teachers unless validly redesignated by a Statute/Ordinance.
  • Statutes vs Ordinances:
    • Statutes: Higher-order rules governing core matters (appointments, service conditions). They need Visitor’s assent and become invalid without it.
    • Ordinances: Subordinate rules made by BOM that take immediate effect but must be submitted to the Visitor, who can object/suspend/disallow; publication and laying before Parliament are required.
  • Visitor: The President of India acts as “Visitor” for IGNOU—no Statute can be made/amended without the Visitor’s assent.
  • Superannuation framework: Initially, teachers retired at 62. MHRD’s 2007 policy raised the age to 65 for those actually engaged in classroom teaching. In 2017, the Visitor approved amendment to Statute 17(9) to reflect 65 for “teachers.” The enhancement never extended to “other academic staff.”
  • Why the 2007 draft Ordinance failed: It was only a proposal approved by BOM; it was never promulgated/published/laid; MHRD advised against it; IGNOU withdrew it; efforts to achieve redesignation via Statute amendments were declined by the Visitor.
  • Effect of late affidavits: Courts generally do not decide on new, contested factual claims introduced without leave and without reply; doing so risks error.

Conclusion

The Division Bench decisively restores the statutory architecture of the IGNOU Act by holding that:

  • The 65-year superannuation age and teacher-centric CAS are benefits attached to the legal status of “teachers,” not to “other academic staff,” however academically engaged they may be in a distance education context.
  • No valid legal instrument ever redesignated the respondents’ posts as “teachers.” The 2007 draft Ordinance was explicitly withdrawn and never attained enforceability; the Visitor later declined Statute amendments for redesignation.
  • Efforts to broaden Statute 17(9) to “teachers/academic staff” in 1999 are unsubstantiated; the Statute continued to refer to “teachers” even in 2017 when the Visitor approved raising the retirement age to 65.
  • Judicial analysis must proceed from the statutory scheme, not from a generalized, functional conception of teaching in distance education.

Key takeaways:

  • Universities must use the correct statutory route—with Visitor approval and publication—to effect cadre redesignation or to extend teacher-only benefits.
  • Courts will not treat unpromulgated or withdrawn instruments as valid; procedural rigor is indispensable in public employment regulation.
  • Equity-based arguments about the nature of duties cannot override the express text of Statutes and Ordinances.

By reasserting the primacy of the IGNOU Act’s formal mechanisms, the judgment provides a clear roadmap for institutional governance in higher education, especially for open and distance learning universities seeking to align academic roles with teacher benefits.

Case Details

Comments