V. K. Agarwal v. State of U. P. — 1992 DIGILAW 261 (ALL)

JUDGMENT : S.D. Agarwala, J. In this petition and the group of petitions connected with the same, the question which arises is as to whether the Petitioners who are the teachers of the State Medical Colleges, their age of superannuation is 60 years or 58 years. The petition filed by Dr. V.K. Agarwal has been treated as the leading petition. 2. Dr. V. K. Agarwal is the Professor and Head of the Department of Pediatrics in the Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Medical College'). This Medical College is a Constituent College of the University of Allahabad. The Petitioner was born on 15th August, 1932. He passed the M 8 B.S. Examination from K. G. Medical College, Lucknow, in the year 1955. Thereafter, he obtained the Diploma of D.C.H in 1958 from London. In 1962, the Petitioner obtained M.R.C.P. from Edinburgh (U. K.) In the year 1963, the Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Medical College at Allahabad. In 1967, the Petitioner obtained the degree of M.D. and, thereafter, in February, 1973, the Petitioner was appointed as the Professor and the Head of the Department of Pediatrics in the Medical College, Allahabad. 3. In the petition, it has been alleged that the Petitioner is responsible for conducting a lot of research work and he is Consultant in many Organisations and he is contributing in a great deal in various Schemes of the Government of India and, consequently, the Petitioner received several awards for his services and research work in the field of child health in the year 1974. He was elected Member of Royal College of Physician, Edinburgh. In 1985, the Petitioner received Hari Om Ashram Research Fund Award. The Petitioner was also awarded Dr. R. S. Dayal Gold Medal for the best research paper in Neonetalogy. 4. In short, the case of the Petitioner is that he is governed by the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and since the age of retirement of the teachers of the University is 60 years the same principle should be applicable to the teachers of the Medical Colleges. They should also be made to retire at the age of 60 years and not at the age of 58 years. 5. The petition has been contested on behalf of the State Government. They should also be made to retire at the age of 60 years and not at the age of 58 years. 5. The petition has been contested on behalf of the State Government. It has been averred in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government that all the teachers in the Medical Colleges in the State are appointed in the same manner. These posts are gazetted posts and they fall within the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission. The medical teachers are appointed after consultation with the U.P. Public Service Commission, as required by Article 320 of the Constitution of India. It has been further alleged that all the Lecturers, Readers and Professors in the Medical Colleges in the State are government servants Their services are at the disposal of the State Government all the 24 hours and that merely because they are engaged in the job of teaching medical education, they do not cease to be government servants The case set up in the counter affidavit, in fact, is that though the Medical College at Allahabad is a constituent College of the University of Allahabad. but in accordance with the Statutes of the University, which provide for the age of superannuation, the teachers of any college exclusively maintained by the State Government or the Local Authority have been excluded. It is consequently the case of the State Government that the teachers of the Medical Colleges are State Government Servants, as they are teachers of the Constituent Colleges exclusively maintained by the State Government and, consequently, the principles applicable to the teachers of the University are not applicable to the teachers of the Medical Colleges, which form a class in themselves. 6. At the time of hearing of the petition, the appointment letters of Dr. V.K. Agarwal were produced before us. It is clear from these appointment letters that Dr. V. K. Agarwal was appointed by the State Government. It is, consequently, not disputed between the parties that Dr. V. K. Agarwal and other Petitioners in the other writ petitions are State Government Servants and are governed by the provisions of the Fundamental Rules, which are applicable to the State Government servants. 7. V. K. Agarwal was appointed by the State Government. It is, consequently, not disputed between the parties that Dr. V. K. Agarwal and other Petitioners in the other writ petitions are State Government Servants and are governed by the provisions of the Fundamental Rules, which are applicable to the State Government servants. 7. In order to consider the various arguments raised on behalf of the Petitioners, it will be appropriate to quote Fundamental Rule 56, which lays down the rule regarding superannuation Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Fundamental Rule 56, which are relevant are being quoted below: 56 (a) Except as otherwise provided in other clauses of this rule, the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant, other than a Government servant in inferior service, is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement with the sanction of the Government on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing, but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances. (b) The date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant in inferior service is the date on which he attains the age of 60 years. He must not be retained in service after that date except in very special circumstances and with the sanction of Government. (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) or Clause (b) the appointing authority may, at any time, by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary) without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of 50 years, or such Government servant may, by notice to the appointing authority, voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of 45 years or after he has completed qualifying service of 20 years. (d)... 8. Sri S.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, has contended that Fundamental Rules 56 under which the teachers of the Medical Colleges are being retired, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in so far as it is made applicable to the teachers of the State Medical Colleges in Uttar Pradesh. 8. Sri S.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, has contended that Fundamental Rules 56 under which the teachers of the Medical Colleges are being retired, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in so far as it is made applicable to the teachers of the State Medical Colleges in Uttar Pradesh. It is urged that the teachers of the State Medical Colleges inherently differ from the rest of the Government servants in the matter of qualifications for employment and age of employment and as such, they constitute a different and separate class among the Government servants. 9. In the petition, facts have been stated to show how the teachers of the Medical Colleges constitute a separate class among the Government servants. It has been stated that the minimum age for seeking admission in the First Year of the M.B.B.S Course is 17 years. The M.B.B.S. Course is of four years and six months without break. Therefore, a candidate, who wants to become a doctor, can complete this Course at the minimum age of 21 years 6 months. It has been further stated that many candidates do not succeed in the examination for the M.B.B.S. Course at the age of 17 years. The average age is between 18 and 19 years, and. as such, the average minimum age of completing the M.B.B.S. Course is 23 years. Thereafter, there is internship period of one year. After internship period, the Post Graduation course is of three years. Therefore, the minimum average age of acquiring the basic qualification of eligibility for appointment to the post of teacher doctors in a State Medical College is 27 years, but due to the delay in advertisement and issuing of appointment letter etc., the minimum age at which a lecturer in the State Medical College enters in service is in or about the age of 29 years. 10. 10. If the case of a teacher of a State Medical College is compared with the Government servants who belong to the All India Services and for the Provincial Civil Services, it is stated that the minimum age for his appearing in the examinations is 21 year, and, therefore, they enter very early in service The case now set up is that since the State Medical College teachers' age of entry into the service is much later than in the case of other services, the case of the teachers in the State Medical Colleges should be treated as a separate class and they should not be clubbed along-with the other Government servants, as it is not possible for any teacher of a Medical College to obtain the full pension in case he is made to retire at the age of 58 years. 11. It is further urged that in case both the Government servants and the teachers of the State Medical Colleges are made to retire at the age of 58 years, the teachers of the State Medical Colleges will have to suffer irreparable injury. To treat them similarly is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory, for this reason, it is urged that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is emphatically urged that treating the teachers and doctors in the same manner as the rest of the Government servants for the purpose of retirement would amount treating wholly unequals and dissimilar as equals. A law non-discriminatory at its place may be discriminatory in its operation because of lack of qualifications 12. In State of Bihar Vs. Dr. Yogendra Singh Col (Retired) and Others, (1982) 1 SCC 664 , the private Medical Colleges had been taken over in Bihar by the Bihar Private Medical Colleges (Taking Over) Act, 1978. The age of superannuation of the staff of the College was reduced from 60 to 58 years, as they, after the take over, had become Government servants. It was held by the Supreme Court that when a member of the teaching staff becomes an employee of the Stale Government, he would be governed by the same age of superannuation which is applicable to other Government servants, namely. It was held by the Supreme Court that when a member of the teaching staff becomes an employee of the Stale Government, he would be governed by the same age of superannuation which is applicable to other Government servants, namely. 58 years, and it was for this reason that the State Government re-determined the age of superannuation of the teachers of the teaching staff of the Medical Colleges taken over by it at 58 years and directed that the services of those who had attained 58 years should be terminated after giving one month's notice. The Supreme Court upheld the reduction of the age of superannuation once the teachers of the Medical Colleges became the Government servants In the instant case, it is not disputed that the Petitioners are State Government servants and hence they are to be governed by the same age of superannuation, which is applicable to other Government servants 13. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has however, urged that Fundamental Rule 56 suffers from the vice of the lack of classification and has relied upon the following cases in support of his submission: 14. The first case relied upon by the learned Counsel is a decision in Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair Vs. The State of Kerala and Another, AIR 1961 SC 552 . In this case Travancore Cochin Land Tax Act (15 of 1955) as amended by Travancore-Cochin Land Tax Amendment Act, 1957 had been challenged. While examining the validity of the said Act Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that inequality is writ large on the Act and is inherent in the very provisions of the taxing section. It was further held that no attempt has been made at classification in the provisions of the Act and hence no more need be said as to what could have been the basis for a valid classification- It was further observed that it is one of those cases where the lack of classification creates inequality, and consequently it was hit by the prohibition to deny equality before the law contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was further specifically held that Section 7 of the Act which vests the Government with the power wholly or partly to exempt any land from the provisions of the Act is clearly discriminatory in its effect and therefore infringe Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was further specifically held that Section 7 of the Act which vests the Government with the power wholly or partly to exempt any land from the provisions of the Act is clearly discriminatory in its effect and therefore infringe Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Act does not lay down any principle or policy for the guidance of the exercise of the discretion by the Government in respect of the selection contemplated by Section 7. 15. The above findings was recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after relying upon the earlier decision of the said court viz.- in the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Others, AIR 1958 SC 538 , The reliance was placed on a passage quoted below: A statute may not make any classification of the persons or things for the purpose of applying its provisions but may leave it to the discretion of the Government to select and classify persons or things to whom its provisions are to apply. In determining the question of the validity or otherwise of such a statute the Court will not strike down the law out of hand only because no classification appears on its face or because a discretion is given to the Government to make the selection or classification but will go on to examine and ascertain if the statute has laid down any principle or policy for the guidance of the exercise of discretion by the government in the matter of selection or classification. After such scrutiny the Court will strike down the statute if it does not lay down any principle or policy for guiding the exercise of discretion by the Government in the matter of selection or classification, on the ground that the statute provides for the delegation of arbitrary and uncontrolled power to the Government so as to enable it to discriminate between persons or things similarly situate and that, therefore the discrimination in here in the statute itself (p. 299 of the Report of SCR) : (at p. 548 of AIR). This was a case where the provisions of the Act were held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as statute did not lay down any principle or policy for guiding the exercise of discretion by the Government in the matter of selection or classification. This was a case where the provisions of the Act were held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as statute did not lay down any principle or policy for guiding the exercise of discretion by the Government in the matter of selection or classification. In this case, however it was further held that in determining the question of validity or otherwise of the statute the Court will not strike down the law out of hand only because no classification appears on its case. 16. The second case relied upon by the learned Counsel is a decision in New Manek Chowk Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of The City of Ahmedabad and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1801 . In this case also it was a property tax imposed by the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad at a flat rate method according to floor area was adopted for textile mills, factories, buildings of universities etc. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the method adopted was against law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This decision was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of the fact that in so far as the textile factories in Ahmedabad was concerned a different method was recognised for determining the property tax. In that connection it opined as follows: We are therefore, not satisfied that conditions prerequisite for determination of annual value of textile factories in Ahmedabad on the basis of rental value per foot super of floor area existed at the relevant time nor has it been shown to us that the so called contractor's basis was adopted by the Municipal authorities of Ahmedabad. The method is not also one which is generally recognised by authorities on rating. Applied indiscriminately as it appears to have been done in this case it is sure to give rise to inequalities, as there has been no classification, of the factories on any rational basis. Further, there does not seem to be any basis for dividing the factories and the buildings thereof under two general classes as buildings used for processing, and buildings for non-processing purposes. What case The Lokmanya Mills Vs. Further, there does not seem to be any basis for dividing the factories and the buildings thereof under two general classes as buildings used for processing, and buildings for non-processing purposes. What case The Lokmanya Mills Vs. The Barsi Borough Municipality, AIR 1961 SC 1358 , applies with equal force to what has been done here and we must hold that the municipality did not observe the law and filed in its duty to determine the rateable value of each building and land comprised in each of the textile factories in terms of Rs. 9 (h) of the rules under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 so far as the assessment book for the year 1966-67 is concerned. This decision was a decision on its own facts. Since a different method was applicable to the case of textile factories, it was consequently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act adopting flat rate method for property tax was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17. Reliance has been placed also on the decision in Judson Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois 351 U S 12. In this case reliance has been placed on two dictums laid down by Black, J. Warren, Ch., J. Douglas and Clark, JJ. which are as follows: The constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection both call for procedures in criminal trials which allow no invidious discriminations between persons and different groups of persons; all people charged with crime must, so far as the law is concerned, stand on a equality before the bar of justice in every American Court. A law non-discriminatory on its face may be grossly discriminatory in its operation. 18. The last case in support of this submission which has been relied upon is a decision in Cumberland Coal Company v. Board of Revision of Tax Assessments in Greene County Pennsylvania 284 US 23. In this case the tax levied on property was a subject matter of challenge. It was observed by the Court was follows. 18. The last case in support of this submission which has been relied upon is a decision in Cumberland Coal Company v. Board of Revision of Tax Assessments in Greene County Pennsylvania 284 US 23. In this case the tax levied on property was a subject matter of challenge. It was observed by the Court was follows. In applying this principle, the fact that a uniform percentage of assigned values is used, cannot be regarded as important if, in assigning the values to which the percentage is applied, a system is deliberately adopted which ignores differences in actual values so that property in the same class as that of the complaining tax payer is valued at the same figure (according to the unit of valuation, as, for example, an acre) as the property of other owners which has an actual value admittedly higher. Applying the same ratio to the same assigned values, when the actual values differ, creates the same disparity in effect as applying a different ratio to actual values when the latter are the same. 19. So far as this case is concerned once doctors were appointed in the State Medical Colleges they became government servants. They had the same rights and privilages as other government servants, In our opinion, on the principles laid down in these cases it cannot be held that Fundamental Rule 56 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In fact, all equals have been treated in a similar manner. It cannot be said that once doctors who also became government servants form a separate class of government servants. They are not being treated with discrimination. It may be that doctors enter in government service at a late age which deprives them to earn full pension but they do earn pension. No government servants has a fundamental right to earn full pension though he does have: a right to earn pension. Even in the case of government servants other than doctors the age of entering into service may be 21 years but it is not unknown that at many times persons enter into government service at a later age within the limit prescribed by the Government. When a person enters at a later age he does not get full pension. Even in the case of government servants other than doctors the age of entering into service may be 21 years but it is not unknown that at many times persons enter into government service at a later age within the limit prescribed by the Government. When a person enters at a later age he does not get full pension. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said that merely because the doctors who are in government service cannot earn full pension Fundamental Rule 56 is discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It may. however, be observed that we are also of the opinion that since the doctors enter into service at a late age after having studied for many years it would be a case where the government may consider raising of the age of the teacher doctors of the State Medical Colleges. It is also no doubt true that in public interest knowledge and experience of the doctors should be utilised by the Government and the Government should raise the age of teacher doctors of the State Medical Colleges to 60 years as normally in every State and in this State also teachers are retired at the age of 60 years. This view that the age of retirement of teacher doctors should be raised to sixty years does not make Fundamental Rule 56 discriminatory. 20. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has next urged that since the age of superannuation of the teachers of the University is 60 years the Petitioners who are also teachers and who perform the same duty as other teachers of the University, their age of superannuation should also be taken as 60 years. In this connection it has been further urged that the age of superannuation of the teachers of the Medical Colleges maintained by the University is also sixty years and consequently retiring teachers of the State Medical Colleges at 58 years is wholly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 21. The Petitioner as already stated above, is professor in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, hereinafter referred to as the 'Medical College'. It is not disputed that the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' governs the Medical College. 21. The Petitioner as already stated above, is professor in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, hereinafter referred to as the 'Medical College'. It is not disputed that the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' governs the Medical College. It is also not disputed that the Medical College is a Constituent College of the University of Allahabad Statute 12 01 of the First Statutes of the Allahabad University, hereinafter referred to as the 'Statutes' provides that Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad maintained by the State Government shall be the Constituent College of the University (emphasis applied). 22. Section 2 (6) of the Act defines 'what is a constituent college'. It means an institution maintained by the University or by the State Government and named as such by the Statutes. Section 2 (18) of the Act defines 'who is a teacher'. It means a person employed for imparting instruction or guiding or conducting research in the University or in an institute or in a constituent, affiliated or associated college and includes a Principal or Director. Section 2 (19) of the Act defines 'teacher of the University'. It means a teacher employed by the University for imparting instruction and guiding or conducting research either in the University or in an Institute or in constituent college maintained by the University. 23. From the above provisions it is clear that through the word 'teacher' includes a teacher of the medical College which is constituent College maintained by the State Government but the teacher of an institution maintained by the State Government does not come under the definition of the 'teacher of the University'. The teachers of the University would mean only those teachers who are employed by the University for a constituent College maintained by the University. It does not provide that a constituent College maintained by the State Government would also come under the definition of the word 'teacher of the University.' 24. Chapter XVI lays down conditions of service of teachers of University. Statute 16.24 provides for the age of superannuation of the teacher of the University. It reads as follows; 16.24. (1) The age of superannuation of a teacher of the University governed by the new scale of pay shall be sixty years. Chapter XVI lays down conditions of service of teachers of University. Statute 16.24 provides for the age of superannuation of the teacher of the University. It reads as follows; 16.24. (1) The age of superannuation of a teacher of the University governed by the new scale of pay shall be sixty years. (2) The age of superannuation of a teacher of the University not governed by the new scale of pay shall be sixty two years. (3) No extension in service beyond the age of superannuation shall be granted to any teacher after the commencement of these Statutes: Provided that if the date of superannuation of a teacher does not fall on June 30, the teacher shall continue in service till the end of the academic session i.e. June 30, following and he will be treated as on re employment from the date immediately following the date of his superannuation till June 30, following. This provision would not be applicable to the case of the Petitioners as they do not come within the definition of the expression ''teachers of the University. 25. Chapter XVII of the First Statutes of the Allahabad University lay down conditions of service of the teachers of the associated colleges. Statute 17.01 specifically provides as follows: 17.10--The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to the teachers of any college exclusively maintained by the State Government or a local authority. This provision clearly excludes application of this Chapter to the teachers of any College exclusively maintained by the State Government or a local authority It is not disputed that the Medical Colleges in which the Petitioners are teachers are exclusively maintained by the State Government. In the circumstances the provisions of this Chapter also do not apply to the teachers of the Medical Colleges maintained by the State Government. 26. Statute 17 14 provides for age of superannuation of the teachers of an Associated College. It reads as follows: 17.14 (1) The age of superannuation of a teacher of an associated college shall be 60 years. (2) The date of retirement of such a teacher shall be the date immediately preceding his 60th birthday. This also would not apply to the teachers of the Medical Colleges exclusively maintained by the State Government in view of Statute 17.01 already quoted above. (2) The date of retirement of such a teacher shall be the date immediately preceding his 60th birthday. This also would not apply to the teachers of the Medical Colleges exclusively maintained by the State Government in view of Statute 17.01 already quoted above. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the provisions of the Act and the statutes providing the age of superannuation will not apply to the constituent Medical Colleges exclusively maintained by the State Government. 27. Chapter XI-A of the Act relating to the payment of salary to the teachers and other employees of Degree Colleges was inserted by U.P. Act No. 21 of 1972. In this Chapter also the word 'College' has been defined, which reads as follows: College means any college affiliated to or recognised by any University in accordance with the provision of this Act or the Statutes made thereunder and for the time being receiving maintenance grant from the State Government (but does not include a college maintained exclusively by the State Government or a local authority). It would be thus apparent that the Legislature specifically excluded from the definition of the word 'College' those Colleges exclusively maintained by the State Government or local authority. On a reading of the various provisions of the Act and the Statutes it is, therefore, clear that the legislative intent was that so far as the terms and conditions of service of the teachers of the Colleges exclusively maintained by the State Government or local authority is concerned they would be governed not by the provisions of the Act or the Statutes but specific terms and conditions of service which may be laid down by the Government in regard to those teachers. No provision has been pointed out either of the Act or Statutes from which it can be said that the teachers of the 'Constituent Colleges' maintained exclusively by the State Government would be governed in so far as the age of superannuation is concerned by such provision. Of course, in case there is a Constituent College not exclusively maintained by the State Government and it is maintained by the University then the age of superannuation of the teachers of such a College would be governed by the provisions of the Act and the Statutes and the age of retirement would be 60 years. Of course, in case there is a Constituent College not exclusively maintained by the State Government and it is maintained by the University then the age of superannuation of the teachers of such a College would be governed by the provisions of the Act and the Statutes and the age of retirement would be 60 years. A clear distinction has been drawn between the Colleges maintained by the University and those maintained by the Stale Government 28. The argument of the 'earned counsel is that the teachers of the Medical Colleges maintained by the University and the teachers of the Medical Colleges exclusively maintained by the State Government do the same work of teaching, preparing the students, for the medical degrees and also holding examinations in accordance with the directions of the University. There is no distinction of work at all between the two classes of teachers. It is no doubt true that if the work and duties to he performed by the teachers of the Constituent College maintained by the University and those maintained by the State Government are same then \o retire teachers of Medical Colleges maintained by the State Government at an early age would be clearly discriminatory but this argument is not now open to the Petitioners. 29. In the State of Uttar Pradesh there was only one Medical College which was maintained by the University viz. King George's Medical College, Lucknow. This is a constituent College maintained by the University of Lucknow as provided in Statute 12.01 of the First Statutes of the Lucknow University. The age of superannuation of the teachers of this constituent College would be 60 years as the teachers of the medical college would be the teachers of the University. With effect from 18-7-1983 U.P. Legislature promulgated an Act viz. The King George's Medical College and the Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospitals (Taking over) Act, 1983, (U.P. Act No. 10 of 1983). By virtue of the said Act the State Government took over King George's Medical College and the management of all the properties and assets pertaining thereto were re-transferred from the University and vested in the State Government. In the circumstances, from 1983 onwards King George's Medical College also became a College exclusively maintained by the State Government. 30. By virtue of the said Act the State Government took over King George's Medical College and the management of all the properties and assets pertaining thereto were re-transferred from the University and vested in the State Government. In the circumstances, from 1983 onwards King George's Medical College also became a College exclusively maintained by the State Government. 30. On 21st December, 1990 State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution framed The Uttar Pradesh State Medical Colleges Teachers' Service Rules, 1990. The teachers of King George's Medical College also became members of the service under the aforesaid Rules. There remained no distinction thereafter between the Constituent Colleges maintained by the University and those maintained exclusively by the State Government. In the circumstances, in view of the framing of the Rules 1990 quoted above there remains now no longer any further distinction between the teachers of the Medical Colleges maintained by the University and those exclusively maintained by the State Government. Regulation 26 specifically provides as follows: 26. Regulation of other matters : In regard to the matters not specifically provided in these rules or in special orders persons appointed to the service shall be governed by the rules regulations and orders applicable generally to Government servants serving in connection with the affairs of the State. The above Rule clearly provides that the person appointed to the service by the Governor in the U.P. State Medical Colleges, their services shall be governed by the Rules, regulations and the orders applicable generally to the government servants serving in connection with the affairs of the State. In the circumstances, it is clear now that the teachers of King George's Medical College would also be governed by the Rules applicable to the government servants serving in connection with the affairs of the State The age of superannuation of all the Medical Colleges teachers in the State has been brought in parity viz. 58 years. There no longer remains any distinction between the Constituent Colleges maintained by the University or those exclusively maintained by the State Government. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that no case of discrimination is made out on this ground. The Petitioners who are teachers of the State. Medical Colleges therefore cannot be governed by the same Rules which are applicable to the 'teachers of the University.' 31. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that no case of discrimination is made out on this ground. The Petitioners who are teachers of the State. Medical Colleges therefore cannot be governed by the same Rules which are applicable to the 'teachers of the University.' 31. The last submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Fundamental Rule 56 (a) should be so interpreted that the age of retirement of the teachers of the Medical Colleges be treated as 60 years. It is urged that the expression used in Fundamental Rule 56 (a), namely. "He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement with the sanction of the Government on public grounds..." should be taken to mean that in the case of teachers of Medical Colleges, since the teachers in the Medical Colleges enter into service at a late age, it would amount to a public ground for extension of their services in every case and as such, their age should be taken as 60 years. 32. In support of this submission, the learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR India Vs. Nergesh Meerza and Others, (1981) 4 SCC 335 , which relates to the age of retirement in regard to Air Hostesses. In the case of Air India (supra) Regulations 46 and 47, which governed the services of the Air Hostesses, came up for consideration They are quoted below; 46. Subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (ii) hereof, an employee shall retire from the service of the Corporation upon attaining the age of 58 years, except in the following cases when he/she shall retire earlier. (c) An Air Hostess, upon attaining the age of 35 years or on marriage if it takes place within four years of service or on first pregnancy, whichever occurs earlier. 47. Extension of service. Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 46, the service of any employee, may, at the option of the Managing Director but on the employee being found medically fit, be extended by one year at a time beyond the age of retirement for an aggregate period not exceeding two years, except in the case of Air Hostesses and Receptionists where the period will be ten years and five years respectively. 33. 33. Regulation 46 provided that the Air Hostesses shall retire upon attaining the age of 35 years or on marriage if it takes place within four years of service or on first pregnancy whichever occurs earlier. Regulation 47 gave a discretion to the Managing Director on the employee being found fit to extend the age of retirement of Air Hostesses for a period of ten years. The subject of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether the discretion granted to the Managing Director to extend the services was valid or not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Regulation 47 has armed the Managing Director with uncnnalised and unguided discretion to extend the age of Air Hostesses at his option and, as such, it suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of powers. The provision made the Air Hostesses entirely at the mercy and at the sweet will of the Managing Director. The conferment of such wide and uncontrolled power on the Managing Director is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it was for this reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down as invalid that part of the Regulation 47 which gave option to the Managing Director to extend the services of an Air Hostess. 34. So far as Fundamental Rule 56 (a) is concerned, the discretion to extend the age of retirement of a Government servant has not been delegated at all and the power has been retained by the Government, whether on public grounds the government servant should be retained in service after the age of retirement or not. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the principle laid down in the case of Air India (supra) does not apply at all to the facts of the present case. In fact, by Fundamental Rule 56 (a), the Government has not only retained the power to extend the date of compulsory retirement, but that power has also been canalised and it has been specifically laid down that the extension can only be on public grounds and that too after the Government records its reasons in writing as to why a particular employee is being retained in service after attaining the age of 58 years, which is the date of superannuation. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the last submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also does not have any substance. 35. There is, however, one aspect of the matter which we must emphasise. In para 31 of the petition, it has been specifically urged by the Petitioner that it was a regular practice in regard to the teachers of State Medical Colleges except in very very rare cases that they were given extension up to the age of sixty years This was an invariable practice. The consequence of this practice was that the teacher doctors remained in employment up to the age of 60 years and it was for this reason that the teacher doctors of the Medical Colleges did not seek any amendment in the Fundamental Rule 56 so far as the teacher doctors were concerned, though they entered in service at a very late age due to the strict medical qualifications required before entry into the Government service. 36. In para 29 of this petition, it has been further stated that so far as the teachers of the K.G. Medical College, Lucknow, are concerned, the age of superannuation of such teachers was also 60 years. These facts have not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government. 37. In writ No. 20019 of 1990 Dr. Baldeo Raj v. State of U.P., which is connected with the leading petition, in paragraph 20 (h), it has been again reiterated that the constituent Medical Colleges, whether maintained by the State Government or by the University, have no substantial difference in working duties, liabilities and responsibilities, as constituent colleges, either maintained by the University or by the State Government, the teachers working in the two are required to discharge the same and identical duties enjoying the same status. This has been stated in order to emphasise that the teachers of the KG. Medical College, Lucknow, whose age of retirement is 60 years, similar age of retirement should be for the teachers of the Medical Colleges maintained by the State Government. 38. In para 23 (i) of this petition, it has also been stated that the State of Uttar Pradesh, in view of the above facts, took a policy decision to grant two years' extension of service to all teachers of State Medical Colleges. 38. In para 23 (i) of this petition, it has also been stated that the State of Uttar Pradesh, in view of the above facts, took a policy decision to grant two years' extension of service to all teachers of State Medical Colleges. In this connection, they have relied upon a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government in Civil Misc. Writ No 16973 of 1987 D.P. Shukla and Ors. v. Slate of U.P. and Ors.. 39. It has also been stated in para 23 (j) that in order to make uniformity in the standard of education, the Medical Council of India has also recommended the age of superannuation of Medical College teachers vide its resolution dated 31st July, 1989. In the petition, it has also been stated that the age of retirement of the teachers of the other States in the country is also 60 years. These allegations have also not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government. 40. From the averments aforesaid, it is apparent that the case set up by the Petitioners, that their age of retirement should be taken as 60 years, appears to be just. Technically, no doubt, the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief in view of Fundamental Rule 56, which governs the teachers of the Medical Colleges maintained by the State Government as they are government servants, but, in the interest of justice, we think it proper that the State Government consider their case for extension under Fundamental Rule 56. The teachers of the Medical Colleges enter at a very late age. The qualifications for appointment of teachers are such that they cannot enter into Government service before the age of less than 27 years. They also cannot possibly earn full pension. In this view of the matter, it is observed that in case the teachers of the Medical Colleges maintained by the State Government apply to the Government for extension of their services, their case should be duly considered by the State Government 41. It will be appropriate here to refer to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India JT (1991) (4) 285. In this case the question was in regard to the age of retirement of a Judicial Officer. It will be appropriate here to refer to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India JT (1991) (4) 285. In this case the question was in regard to the age of retirement of a Judicial Officer. The claim of the subordinate judiciary was that the age of retirement of the Officers of the subordinate judiciary should be fixed as sixty years inasmuch as the basic qualification for recruitment to the service requires every officer to have in the minimum a bachelor's degree in law which is acquirable after becoming a graduate On the other hand while for normal civil service a graduate is eligible for recruitment, to the judicial service a minimum further period of three years become necessary to acquire the basic qualification The Supreme Court ultimately directed that appropriate alterations shall be made in the Rules obtaining in the States and Union Territories in respect of judicial service so as to fix the age of retirement at sixty years with effect from December 31, 1992. The case of the teachers of the Medical Colleges is pari materia to the case of the Judicial Officers. Here also special qualifications are required after obtaining M.B.B.S degree for entering into service. The Slate may consider framing of appropriate rules. 42. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these petitions. The Petitioners, however, shall be permitted to hold the post on which they are working till March 31, 1992. The Petitioners shall, if they so desire, make applications for extension of their age of superannuation to the State Government within a period of ten days from today. The State Government shall dispose of the applications on or before March 31, 1992 In those oases where applications for extension are allowed, the Petitioners shall be permitted to continue in service till they attain the age of sixty years otherwise they will cease to work on March 31, 1992. 43. Sri Ravi Kant, learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. has given an undertaking that the State will not recover the salary paid to the Petitioners in view of the orders passed by this Court. With the above directions, the Petitioners are disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.