The Madras High Court today ruled that the Institute of Road and Transport Technology (IRTT) in Erode district is a self financing non-minority institution and not a government or government aided one.
Justice M Venugopal gave the ruling while dismissing a petition from K R Palanisamy, a physical director of IRTT, Erode, to direct the institute to refix his scale of pay as per that fixed by All India Council for Technical Education.
Palanisamy, a post graduate in physical education, joined IRTT as Director of physical education in 1986.
Citing a 1989 GO, which revised the payscale of physical directors in engineering colleges on recommendations of AICTE, he sent a representation to IRTT in 1997 to revise his pay. But IRTT rejected it in 2000 on the ground that the GO was not applicable to it.
Palanisamy then moved the High Court.
The judge said educational institutions run by Institute of Road Transport (IRT) were classified as 'unaided non-minority educational institution' as per the June 5, 2004, letter of Special Commissioner and secretary, Transport department. Further, no government funds were given for these institutions.
The court noted that though the director of technical education has control over all engineering colleges in the state, including IRTT, it was exercised only to oversee eligibility conditions of students, notwithstanding the fact that IRT follows government procedure for recruiting staff.
In view of the fact that the scale of pay for staff of IRT institute was fixed at the appropriate level as approved by the governing council, the judge said the court concludes that IRTT is a self-financing non-minority institution.
As the college was run by IRT, the institute is neither a government institution nor a government aided institution, the judge held.
Also when IRTT does not receive aid from government, UGC or AICTE to run the college, "it is certainly not an agency or instrumentality of the state". Therefore, the petitioner's claim was clearly unsustainable, the court said.
However, dismissal of the petition would not preclude the petitioner from seeking appropriate remedy before the competent forum, the court added.
