Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) PETITIONER on attaining the age of superannuation stood retired as a Professor of Education Jamia Millia Islamia University, Delhi on 30. 6. 1994. His grievance is that respondents have failed to appoint him against his legitimate right of re-employment for a period of three years from the day of his retirement. Direction is sought for quashing of the letter, annexure P-6, dated 4. 8. 1994 by which petitioner s case was referred to the Advisory Committee under Clause (4) of Ordinance XXXVII-A which according to the petitioner is not applicable in his case. ( 2 ) REGULATION XXXVII of the respondent-University says that all whole time teachers of the University shall retire from service on attaining the age of 60 years. The Executive Council, on recommendation of Vice Chancellor, may in the interest of University, re-employ a teacher for such period as it may deem fit and on such terms and conditions as it may prescribe, provided that no teacher shall remain in service beyond the age of 65 years and no administrative responsibility will be given to a re-employed employee. ( 3 ) PETITIONER s case is that since in his case the Head of the Department had forwarded his request for re-employment, in terms of Ordinance XXXVII, it was necessary and obligatory for the respondents to have re-employed him for a period of three years. It was so done in the case of Prof. M. Abu Baker and Prof. Rehmat Ali but in his case Ordinance XXXVII-A (4) has wrongly been applied and instead of re-employing him, matter was directed to be referred to the Advisory Committee, which could not be done. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS version in the reply, filed on the affidavit of Prof. Mohd. Miyan, Officiating Registrar of the University, is that Dean had simply forwarded the petitioner s application to the Vice- Chancellor, without making any comments of his own. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS version in the reply, filed on the affidavit of Prof. Mohd. Miyan, Officiating Registrar of the University, is that Dean had simply forwarded the petitioner s application to the Vice- Chancellor, without making any comments of his own. After petitioner made another representation, comments of the Dean were called, who stated that the petitioner s bio data does not show any substantial contribution in respect of the research work, which is expected from a person of his status and as such the petitioner s case was not recommended for re-employment, In the circumstances, when petitioner s case had not been recommended by the Head of the Department, the case for re-employment in terms of Ordinance XXXVII-A (4) was referred to the Advisory Committee It is also stated that the Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 8. 8. 1994 duly considered the case of the petitioner and made the following recommendations to the Executive Committee: "the Committee considered the application for re-employment along with details of Bio-data of Prof. P. S. Verma and the comments of the Dean, Faculty of Education and came to the conclusion that it will not be in the larger interest of the institution to grant re-employment to him. " ( 5 ) HAVING considered the respective stand of the parties their submissions and the relevant Ordinance XXXVII-A, we are of the view that there is no legal right vested in a teacher of the respondent-University for being re-employed beyond the age of superannuation. The only right, if any, which can be said to be available to a teacher on superannuation would be of being considered-for re- employment and in case recommendation is made for re-employment, he may be re-employed by the Executive Council. In a case where no recommended for re-employment is made, the matter has to be referred to the Advisory Committee, In the case of the petitioner there was no positive recommendation for re-employment and no fault can be found in respondents action in forwarding his case to the Advisory Committee, which also has now given its advice for not re-employing the petitioner. The mere fact that in the past two teachers, after superannuation were re-employed, assuming, without any recommendation of the Head of the Department, on the mere forwarding of their applications, the same cannot amount to conferring a right in petitioner s favour and this act cannot be taken as an act of discrimination thereby giving right in petitioner s favour for being re-employed as a matter of course, when petitioner s case was duly considered and not recommended and approved by the Advisory Committee. ( 6 ) THERE is no force in the petition, which is dismissed.