Judgment G. C. Bharuka, J. 1. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 8-3-1988 (Annexure-1) issued by the secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna, whereby Respondent No.5 (Sri Raghubansh Jha) has been made Incharge headmaster of Kajins Sanskrit high School, Pupri (hereinafter to be referred to as the school ). 2. The case of the petitioner is that he had joined the school in the year 1959 as an assistant teacher and at the material time i. e. in March, 1988, he was working as headmaster of the school and, therefore, there was no occasion to declare that the post of headmaster of the school was vacant necessitating the appointment of Respondent No.5 as the incharge headmaster. On the other hand, the stand of the Respondents is that the petitioner had already superannuated on 31-1-1988 and, therefore, the order as contained in Annexure 1 to this application is legal and valid. 3. For ascertaining the validity of the order as contained in Annexure-1, two questions need to be decided, namely : (i) What is the age of superannuation, and (ii) What is the date of birth of the petitioner. 4. So far as the first question is concerned, the assertions made on behalf of the petitioner is that the Sanskrit Schools are now governed by bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board Act, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred to as the act) (Bihar Act.31 of 1982) but no statutory rule has been framed governing the service conditions It has further been submitted that as per the Bihar non-Government Sanskrit High School (Service and Condition) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules), the age for superannuation has been fixed to be 65 years. This claim of the petitioner has been sought to be controverted by the Respondents by relying on a Notification of the State government (Education Department) bearing No.1184 dated 31-12-1980 (Annexure-A) to the Counter affidavit of Respondent No.5 ). By this Notification rule 21 of the Rules providing 65 years of age as the age of superannation, inter alia, in case of the teachers honoured with a National Award and for scholars teaching Sanskrit, has been deleted. No rule framed under the bihar Act 31 of 1982 has been placed on the record. By this Notification rule 21 of the Rules providing 65 years of age as the age of superannation, inter alia, in case of the teachers honoured with a National Award and for scholars teaching Sanskrit, has been deleted. No rule framed under the bihar Act 31 of 1982 has been placed on the record. It is also not in dispute that the above referred Service Condition Rules, 1976 framed by the State government are not supported by any statutory provision. But still since the management of the school and the teachers have accepted the said Rules to be the part of their service conditions, therefore, it has to be held that the age of superannuation of the teachers is to be governed by those rules somewhat in a similar situation the Supreme Court in the case of Miss Raj soni V/s. Air Officer-incharge Administration and another, AIR 1990 SC 1305 has held that : "even otherwise every institution must frame and follow a uniform rule for superannuating its employees. The age of superannuation can not be left to the whims of the employer to enable him to retire different employees at different ages. In the absence of any regulation, Bye-laws or policy decision by the respondent-management regarding the age of superannuation, we accept the contention of the petitioner that prior to the coming into force of the act and the Rules the management was following the Delhi education Code which provided 60 years as the age of superannuation for the school teachers. " 5. In the present case as well admittedly neither the management of the school has any regulation of its own to determine the service conditions nor is there any other legally acceptable instrument spelling out any term and condition except the aforesaid non-statutory Rules. In this view of the matter it has to be held that the age of superannuation of the petitioner has got to be ascertained by referring to the provisions of the said Rules. 6. As per Rule 20 of the Rules the age of superannuation of the teachers is 62 years. But Rule 21 the roof makes an exception. In this view of the matter it has to be held that the age of superannuation of the petitioner has got to be ascertained by referring to the provisions of the said Rules. 6. As per Rule 20 of the Rules the age of superannuation of the teachers is 62 years. But Rule 21 the roof makes an exception. This rule provides 65 years as the age of superannuation in respect of two classes, namely : (i) To the teachers who have obtained National Award, and (ii) To the scholars teaching Sanskrit To my mind the expression scholars teaching Sanskrit, in the context in which it has been used, should only mean such teachers of Sanskrit, who have acquired a distinction in their field. Nothing has been brought on the record by the petitioner to substantiate that he has acquired any such distinction in the field of teaching Sanskrit. Therefore, per se the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of 65 years as the age of superannuation. 7. Even otherwise the above referred Rule 21 of the Rules has already been deleted by Notification No.1184 dated 31-12-1980. As such now there is a uniform age of superannuation being the age of 62 years. 8. In the above view of the matter, the petitioner is to superannuate on attaining the age of 62 years. 9. So far as the second question is concerned, according to the petitioner his date of birth being 1-5-1926 he is entitled to hold the post of headmaster till 30th April, 1991. As a proof of his date of birth, a photostate copy of the Prathama certificate dated 16-11-1938 granted by Bihar Sanskrit a ssociation has been filed as Annexure-2 to this application. On the other hand the Respondent No.5 has filed copy of Madhyama certificate (Matric)issued in 1940 by Bihar Sanskrit Association, which shows that the date of birth of the petitioner is 20th January, 1926. The genuineness of this document has not been disputed by the petitioner. The Respondent has also filed copy of a letter dated 27-8-1975 written by the petitioner to the Vice-Chancellor of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga University for fixation of revised pay scale of teachers of the school. In the said letter the petitioner himself has admitted that his date of Birth is 20th January, 1926. The Respondent has also filed copy of a letter dated 27-8-1975 written by the petitioner to the Vice-Chancellor of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga University for fixation of revised pay scale of teachers of the school. In the said letter the petitioner himself has admitted that his date of Birth is 20th January, 1926. In view of the admission of the petitioner himself as the headmaster of the school, which is a matter of official record, the date of birth of the petitioner has to be taken as 20th January, 1926. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, it has to be held that the petitioner has superannuated with effect from 31-1-1988. Therefore, there was nothing wrong on the part of the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board to appoint respondent No.5 as incharge headmaster of the school in question. 11. The writ application, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ Application dismissed.