In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notification dated 1.12.99 of the Govt of Meghalaya which has reduced the age of retirement of the Govt servants working under the Govt of Meghalaya from 60 years to 5 8 years. The petitioner has also prayed for a Mandamus on the respondents to implement the earlier notification dated 25.9.98 e of the Govt of Meghalaya by which the age of retirement of the Govt servants under the Govt of Meghalaya was increased from 58 years to 60 years. 2. The petitioner is an association of employees working under the Govt of Meghalaya in Meghalaya Govt Press and is registered as a Trade Union. The object of petitioner Association is to protect the interest of its members and more particularly the conditions of their service under the Govt of Meghalaya. Pursuant to a decision taken by the Cabinet of the Govt of Meghalaya, a notification dated 25.9.98 was issued by the Govt of Meghalaya, Finance (Establishment) Department. By the said notification dated 25.9.98, the Governor of Meghalaya in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling on that behalf amended FR 57 (a) of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984 so as to increase the age of retirement of Govt servants working under the Govt of Meghalaya from 58 years to 60 years. The said notification was followed up by an office memorandum dated 17.10.98 issued by the Govt of Meghalaya, Personnel & AR (A) Department, which provided, inter alia, that a Govt servant whose age of retirement currently was 58 years would retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he/she attained the age of 60 years. As a. result, all Govt servants working under the Govt of Meghalaya who were to retire at the age of 58 years after 25.9.98 continued in service and were to retire only at the age of 60 years. But this position changed when an office memorandum dated 1.12.99 was issued by the Govt of Meghalaya providing that every Govt servant whose date of retirement was currently 60 years would retire from service < on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he/she attained the age of 58 years. But this position changed when an office memorandum dated 1.12.99 was issued by the Govt of Meghalaya providing that every Govt servant whose date of retirement was currently 60 years would retire from service < on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he/she attained the age of 58 years. This was followed by a notification dated 22.12.99 of the Govt of Meghalaya, Finance (Establishment) Department, in which it was stated that in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling him on that behalf, the Governor of Meghalaya has amended FR 57 (a) of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984 so as to reduce the are of retirement of the Govt servants working under the Govt of Meghalaya from 60 years to 58 years. The aforesaid amendment of FR 57 (a) was to come into force with effect from 31.3.2000. It is this rolling back of the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years which has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. At the hearing, Mr. GS Massar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that it will appear from the news in the 'North East Daily' dated 10.2.99, 'Apphira Daily News' dated 14.4.99, 'Mawphar News Paper' dated 23.3.2000, copies of which have been annexed to the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 29.3.2000 that the Govt of Meghalaya rolled back the retirement age from 60 years to 58 years on account of pressure from the Khasi Students Union and d NGO's. This would also be evident from the reply in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents and in particular para 4 thereof in which it has been admitted by the Govt that after considering views of the general public, NGOs and various Govt employees associations favouring lowering the age of retirement to 58 years, the Cabinet of the State Govt constituted a special task force to examine the implication of raising the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. According to Mr. Massar, therefore, the decision of the Govt of Meghalaya to roll back the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years was influenced by extraneous considerations and was taken without any application of mind. Mr. According to Mr. Massar, therefore, the decision of the Govt of Meghalaya to roll back the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years was influenced by extraneous considerations and was taken without any application of mind. Mr. Massar further submitted that the Govt has also not examined the adverse consequences of its decision to roll back the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years. He referred to the office order dated 6.12.99 of the Director of Printing and Stationery, Govt of Meghalaya, annexed to the writ petition as Annexure V, to show that some of the employees who were Senior Readers would have been promoted to the post of Head Reader and would have 'drawn more salary in the post of Head Reader if the age of retirement had remained at 58 years. But since the age of retirement was increased from 58 years to 60 years by the earlier notification dated 25.9.98 such Senior Readers could not be considered for promotion to the Head Reader as the Head Reader continued to remain in service beyond 58 years. But as a consequence of subsequent impugned notification rolling back the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years arid further providing that all those who have completed 58 years will be retired on 31.3.2000, the Senior Readers cannot now be considered for promotion to the higher post of Head Reader as the Senior Readers would also retire on 31.3.2000 along with the Head Reader. Further consequence is that such Senior Readers who could not become Head Reader would retire at the lower salary of Senior Reader and not at the higher salary of Head Reader and would accordingly draw pension as retired Senior Reader. Mr. Massar vehemently argued that the junior employees such as Senior Readers had legitimate expectation to retire in higher post such as Head Reader but on account of roll back of the age of retirement from 60 years to 5 8 years by the impugned notification, their legitimate expectation has been denied. Although a ground has been taken that the reduction of the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years by the impugned notification was in gross violation of the principles of promissory estoppel, the said ground was not pressed at the time of hearing of the writ petition. 4. Mr. Although a ground has been taken that the reduction of the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years by the impugned notification was in gross violation of the principles of promissory estoppel, the said ground was not pressed at the time of hearing of the writ petition. 4. Mr. BP Marngar, Senior Govt Advocate, Meghalaya, on the other hand, relying on the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents, submitted that the State Govt had taken a decision to roll back the age of retirement from 60-to 58 years after examining all pros and cons of the matter and that the impugned notification was neither illegal nor arbitrary. Supplementing the aforesaid submission of Mr. Marngar, Mr. VK Jindal, learned Govt Advocate, Meghalaya, contended that there was no legal right conferred on a Govt servant that he would serve after the age of 58 years and that it was only by virtue of the rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution that the age of retirement of Govt servant was to be 60 years and that the Govt of Meghalaya has the power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to amend the said rule so as to reduce the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years. Mr. Jindal further submitted that such reduction of the age of retirement by the Govt has been upheld by the Supreme Court in C. Sankaranarayanan vs. State of Kerala, (1971) 2 SCC 361 ; B. Narayan Murthy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1971) 2 SCC 425 and K. Nagraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 551 . 5. The question for decision in this writ petition is whether the decision of the Govt of Meghalaya to roll back the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years after having been increased from 58 years to 60 years can be quashed on the ground that the said decision has been taken without any application of mind and was influenced by extraneous consideration or on the ground that it affects the legitimate expectation of Govt servants to get promoted to higher posts and has adverse consequences for them. FR 57 (a) of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984 provided that a Govt servant would retire at the age of 58 years. FR 57 (a) of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984 provided that a Govt servant would retire at the age of 58 years. By notification dated 25.9.98, however, the Governor of Meghalaya in exercise of powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India amended the said Rule 57 (a) so as to increase the age of retirement of the Govt servants from 58 years to 60 years. Thereafter, by the notification dated 22.12.99, the Governor of Meghalaya in exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution again amended the said FR 57 (a) so as to reduce the age of retirement of the Govt servants from 60 years to 58 years and the said amendment came into force with effect from 31.3.2000. The impugned reduction of the age of retirement of the Govt servants working under the Govt of Meghalaya from 60 years to 58 years was, therefore, by a rule made fry the Governor of Meghalaya under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 6. Article 309 of the Constitution of India is quoted herein below: “309. Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State: Provided that it shall be competent for the President or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in the case of b services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this Article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act.” It will be thus clear from Article 309 of the Constitution that Acts of appropriate Legislature may regulate recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and pots in connection with the affair§ of Union or of a State. Thus the Legislature of the State of Meghalaya has been vested with that power to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with affairs of the State of Meghalaya. The opening words of Article 309 of the Constitution further make it clear that such powers of the Legislature to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State is only subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Under the proviso to Article 309, however, the Governor of a State may make regulations and rules of recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed £ to such services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State until provision on that behalf is made by an Act of the Legislature of the State and any rule so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act. Thus until an Act is made by the concerned Legislature regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, the Governor has been vested with the powers to make rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and such power of the Governor to make rules under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India is also subject to provisions of the Constitution and in the same manner as the power of the Legislature to make an Act under the main provision of the Article 309 of the Constitution. Such power of the Governor to make rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution being subject to provisions of the Constitution, a rule made under the said proviso to Article 309 can be struck down if it violates any provision of the Constitution. Such rule made by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be, therefore, struck down on the ground that it has been made without application of mind or it has been made on account of extraneous considerations or on the ground that it affects the legitimate expectations of a person or has adverse consequences for him. In J&S Vadera vs. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 118 , the Supreme Court observed: “It is also significant to note that the proviso to Article 309, clearly lays down that any rules so made shall have effect, subject to the provisions of any such Act. The clear and unambiguous expressions, used in the Constitution, must be given their full and unrestricted meaning unless hedged in by any limitations. The rules, which have be “subject to the provisions of the Constitution” shall have effect, “subject to the provisions of any such Act”. That is, if the appropriate Legislature has passed an Act, under Article 309, the rules, framed under the proviso, will have effect, subject to that Act, but, in the absence of any Act, of the appropriate Legislature, on the matter, in our opinion, the rules, made by the President, or by such person as he may direct, are to have full affect, both prospectively and retrospectively. Apart from the limitations, pointed out above, there is none other, imposed by the proviso to Article 309, regarding the ambit of the operation of such rules. In other words, the rules, unless they can be impeached on grounds such as breach of Part III, of any other Constitutional provision, must be enforced, if made by the appropriate authority.” This position of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in K. Nagraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) in which it has been held that the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution is of a legislative character and is to be distinguished from ordinary rule making power and the power to legislate is of plenary nature within the field demarcated by the Constitution. Similarly, in RL Bansal vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 978 , the Supreme Court held that rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution being legislative in character cannot be struck down merely because the Court thinks that they are unreasonable and they can be struck down only on the grounds upon which a legislative measure can be struck down. 7. 7. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to show that the impugned rule made by the Governor of Meghalaya under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution in FR 57 (a) of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984 that the age of retirement of Govt servants would be 58 years instead of 60 years violates any provision of the Constitution. The grounds of challenge to the impugned rule under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, as urged by Mr. Massar, learned counsel for the petitioner are that the impugned rule has been made without application of mind and on account of pressure of Students' Union and NGOs and that the impugned rule has adverse consequences for the Govt servants and denies them their legitimate expectations to get promoted to higher posts and enjoy higher scales of pay at the higher posts and better pension after their retirement. Legitimate expectations of Govt servants to be promoted to higher posts and to get a scale of pay of such higher posts and to retire with better pension are not based on any provisions of the Constitution. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in K. Nagraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) that a legislative measure such as an Ordinance cannot be invalidated on the ground of non-application of mind or on the ground of ulterior motive. Similarly, a rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution being legislative in character cannot also be struck down on the ground that it has been made without application of mind or has been made on account of extraneous considerations. The grounds of challenge to the impugned rule under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution reducing the age of the Govt servants working under the Govt of Meghalaya from 60 years to 58 years are thus misconceived. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.