M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is in the orders list. By consent of both the Counsel, it is taken up for final hearing and is disposed of by this order. ( 2 ) THE Petitioner a Professor and head of the Department of Chemistry of the Mysore University has inter alia sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus directinng the respondent to continue the petitioner in service till the end of the current academic year. The facts of the case in brief are as follows. ( 3 ) THE date of birth of the petitioner is 12-8-1923. The age of superannuation according to the rules regulating the condition of service of teaching staff of the University of Mysore is 60 years. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to retire with effect from 12-8-1983. ( 4 ) THE case cf the petitioner is that in view of the statue regarding re-employment of retired teachers upto the end of a academic year framed by the University, the petitioner had a right to continue till the end of academic year. The statue, copy of which is produced as annexure 'b' reads: - (1) These Statues shall be called the re-employmentt of retired teachers till the end of the academic year statutes 1978. (2) The Professors, Readers, Lecturers and Tutors of the University of Mysore retiring on attaining the age of 60 years at any time after the commencement of an acadmic year shall be continued till the end of the academic year. Such re-employment shall be made after obtaining the orders of the "chancellor in each eate well in time, provided such teachers are found to be physically fit. (3) The statutes shall come into force from 27th August 1980 the date of communicating the approval of the Chancellor by the Government. "there is no dispute that according to the notification dt. 28th June 1983, the academic year commenced from 1-8-1983. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the statute and on the basis of the facts set out above, sri. Raghavan learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was entitled to continue till the end of the current academic year and therefore his proposed retirement with effect from 12-8-1983 was not valid. ( 6 ) SRI. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the statute and on the basis of the facts set out above, sri. Raghavan learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was entitled to continue till the end of the current academic year and therefore his proposed retirement with effect from 12-8-1983 was not valid. ( 6 ) SRI. H. K. Vasudeva Reddy learned Counsel for the University, percontra, contends that having regard to the wording of the statute it was only a provision which enabled the university to continue the members of the teaching staff even beyond 60 years but not beyond the end of the concerned academic year if such continuance was considered necessary in the interest of the service of the University, and, even this was only on re- employment basis which clearly indicates that retirement would take effect from the date on which the concerned member of the teaching staff attained the age of 60 years and the University had anly the power to re-employ him till the end of the academic year. ( 7 ) THE first sentence in the statute on which the petitioner velies no doubt gives an impression that a teacher reaching the age of 60 years at any time after the commencement of the academic year has to be continued till the end of the academic year. In other words, according to the wording of the sentence the service stands extended till the end of the academic year but the reading of the next sentence maks it clear that the statute provides for only re-employment after the date of superannuation till the enu of the concerned academic year and further before doing so, a specific order from the Chancellor has to be obtained on the basis of a certificate that the teacher was physically fit. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner however contends that according to the first sentence the petitioner has a right to continue till the end of the academic year and according to the second sentence there was a duty cast on the part of the concerned authority of the University to take an order from the Chancellor and to continue the concerned teacher till the end of the academic year on re-employment basis. ( 9 ) ON a consideration of the provision it appears to me, the contention urged for the University is sound. ( 9 ) ON a consideration of the provision it appears to me, the contention urged for the University is sound. The statute does not create any right in favour of the member of a teaching staff reaching the age of 60 years after the beginning of the academic year to continue till the end of the academic year. It only enables the University, if it so desires, to continue the service of a member of the teaching staff even beyond 60 years but not beyond the end of the concerned academic year on le-employment basis if the date of superannuation falls after the commencement of the concerned academic year. A provision of this type does not create a right in the servant as is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in Kailash Chandra v. Union of India, ( AIR 1961 SC 1346 ). The Rule which was interpreted reid as follows:"a ministerial servant who is not governed by sub-clause (b) may be required to retire at the age of 55 years but should ordinarily be retained in service if he continues to be efficient upto the age of 60 years. "the Supreme Court interpreted the rule and held that the Rule did not create any right in the Railway Servant concerned to continue in the service beyond 55 years even if he was found to be efficient. The Supreme court further held that even omitting the word 'ordinarily' used in the rule, the meaning of the rule would be the same, in that the right to continue in service would be till the age of superannuation at 55 years and beyond that it would be within the discretion of the authority concerned to continue the service of the concerned railway servant in service or not. ( 10 ) IN the result, I make the following order. Rule discharged petition dismissed. --- *** --- .