JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 17.9.2004 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, it may be declared that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 62 years and the respondent No. 1-Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur (for short the University') be restrained from retiring the petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.10.2004 and further, the Government of Rajasthan (respondent No. 2) as well as the Chancellor (respondent No. 3) be directed to accord assent or approval to the decision taken by the Board of Management of the respondent No. 1-University in the meeting held on15.11.2003 through Annex.5 enhancing the age of superannuation from sixty to sixty-two years of the teachers of the respondent No. 1-University and further, the impugned order dated 26.3.2004 passed by the Director Research of respondent No. 1-University by which the petitioner was ordered to be retired from service on 31.10.2004 be ordered to be withdrawn. 2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows : The petitioner was initially appointed as Research Assistant in the Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur on 4.12.1971. Suffice it to say that at present the petitioner is the employee of the Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur (respondent No. 1), which has come into existence under the Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2000') and further, the service conditions of the petitioner are being governed under the Rules known as "Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur Teachers & Officers Service Conditions and Conduct Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2000') framed under the Act of 2000. The petitioner has further invited the attention of this Court towards the letter dated 27.7.1998 (Annex.8) written by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), New Delhi to the Secretary, University Grants Commission, where under the heading "Age' of Superannuation", it was mentioned that the age of superannuation of University and college teachers would be 62 years and thereafter, no extension in exercise should be given. However, it would be open to a University or college to re-employee a superannuated teacher according to the existing guidelines framed by the UGC upto the age of 65 years. The petitioner has further invited attention of this Court towards letter dated 3.3.1999 (Annex.9) written by the Government of India Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Research & Education, New Delhi to the Chief Secretaries of all the States where in respect of age of superannuation, it was observed as follows : "While concurring in the proposal of the Council for enhancement in the age of retirement of Teachers from 60 to 62 years, the competent authority has advised to place it before the Government. Accordingly, necessary action has already been taken and after the final decision, separate order in this regard will be issued. Until such time, the age of superannuation will continue to be 60 years." The petitioner has also invited attention of this Court towards office memorandum dated 31.10.2003 (Annex.10) issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Agricultural Research & Education, New Delhi by which the age of superannuation of the teachers/scientists of State Agricultural Universities/Central Agricultural University, Imphal was enhanced from 60 years to 62 years.The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, a meeting of the Board of Management of the respondent No. 1-University was held on 15.11.2003 at 11.00 a.m. and about age of superannuation, the following resolution was passed : "RESOLVED that for enhancing the age of superannuation from sixty to sixty-two years of the teachers of the University be agreed. However, a copy of the Resolution of the Board of Management be sent to the Government of Rajasthan and the Chief Secretary may be requested for implementing the same in the University." The further case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid Resolution of the Board of Management of the respondent No. 1-University dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) enhancing the age of superannuation of the teachers of the University from 60 to 62 years was forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur by the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent No. 1-University through letter dated 10.12.2003 (Annex.6) with the request to convey the orders of the Government for implementing the same in the University.The further case of the petitioner is that the State Government has not taken any decision on the letter dated 10.12.2003 forwarding the resolution dated 15.11.2003 (Annex,5) raising age of superannuation of the teachers of the University (respondent No. 1) from 60 to 62 years and the matter is still pending. But, in the meantime, order Annex. 13 dated 26.3.2004 was issued by the Director Research of respondent No. 1-University by which the petitioner was ordered to be retired from University services on attaining the age of 60 years with effect from 31.10.2004, as according to the respondent No. 1 University, the age of superannuation as exists today was 60 years and this matter has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.The main case of the petitioner is that when the concerned authorities have recommended that the age of superannuation of the teachers of the respondent No. 1-University be enhanced from 60 to 62 years and that matter is still pending with the State Government for final decision and no reply has been received from the State Government so far, therefore, it should be treated as deemed approval to the resolution passed by the Board of Management of the respondent No. 1-University dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) raising age of superannuation of the teachers of the University (respondent No. 1) from 60 to 62 years and from this point of view, the petitioner could not be retired on attaining age of 60 years. Therefore, the impugned order Annex.13 dated 26.3.2004 retiring the petitioner from service on attaining age of 60 years on 31.10.2004 cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. Therefore, the impugned order Annex.13 dated 26.3.2004 retiring the petitioner from service on attaining age of 60 years on 31.10.2004 cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above.A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents Nos. 1 & 3 and their case is that since the matter about enhancement of age of superannuation of the teachers of the respondent No. 1-University from 60 to 62 years has not been approved by the respondent No. 2-State of Rajasthan and the same is pending consideration with the State Government, therefore, today the age of retirement for all purposes should be treated as 60 years and until and unless the concerned Rule 56(a) of the Rules of 2000 is amended as per the resolution of the Board of Management of the respondent No. 1-University dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5), the age of superannuation of teachers of the respondent No. 1-University should be treated as 60 years. It was further submitted that the theory that since the State Government has not given any reply, therefore, it should be treated as deemed approval to the resolution of the Board of Management of the respondent-University dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) raising age of superannuation of the University teachers from 60 to 62 years, cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, it was submitted that since the matter is pending consideration with the State Government, therefore, at this stage, no interference is called for with this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the entire materials available on record. 4. There is no dispute on the point that presently the petitioner is the employee of the respondent No. 1-University and his service conditions are being governed by the Rules of 2000. As per Rule 56(a) of the Rules of 2000, all the teachers/officers shall retire from the University service upon attaining the age of 60 years and for convenience, the said Rule 56(a) is quoted here:- "56. Retirement (a) on attaining age of superannuation : All the teachers/officers shall retire from the University service upon attaining the age of 60 years. As per Rule 56(a) of the Rules of 2000, all the teachers/officers shall retire from the University service upon attaining the age of 60 years and for convenience, the said Rule 56(a) is quoted here:- "56. Retirement (a) on attaining age of superannuation : All the teachers/officers shall retire from the University service upon attaining the age of 60 years. Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the date of retirement of University Teachers/officer is the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he/she attains 60 years of age. In case the date of birth of a person is the first day of a given month then he/she shall retire on the last working day of the preceding month." 5. There is also no dispute on the point that in the letter Annex.8 dated 27.7.1998 written by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), New Delhi to the Secretary, University Grants Commission, under the heading "Age of Superannuation", it was mentioned that the age of superannuation of University and college teachers would be 62 years and thereafter, no extension in service should be given. However, it would be open to a University or college to re-employee a superannuated teacher according to the existing guidelines framed by the UGC upto the age of 65 years. 6. There is also no dispute on the point that in the letter dated 3.3.1999 I Annex.9) written by the Government of India Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Research & Education, New Delhi to the Chief Secretaries of all the States, the following observations were made in respect of age of superannuation : "While concurring in the proposal of the Council for enhancement in the age of retirement of Teachers from 60 to 62 years, the competent authority has advised to place it before the Government. Accordingly, necessary action has already been taken and after the final decision, separate order in this regard will be issued. Until such time, the age of superannuation will continue to be 60 years." 7. There is also no dispute on the point that through officer memorandum dated 31.10.2003 (Annex.10) issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Agricultural Research & Education, New Delhi, the age of superannuation of the teachers/scientists of State Agricultural Universities/Central Agricultural University, Imphal was enhanced from 60 years to 62 years. 8. There is also no dispute on the point that through officer memorandum dated 31.10.2003 (Annex.10) issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Agricultural Research & Education, New Delhi, the age of superannuation of the teachers/scientists of State Agricultural Universities/Central Agricultural University, Imphal was enhanced from 60 years to 62 years. 8. There is also no dispute on the point that the Board of Management of the respondent No. 1-University through resolution dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) resolved to enhance the age of superannuation of the teachers of respondent No. 1-University from 60 to 62 years. 9. There is also no dispute on the point that through letter Annex.6 dated 10.12.2003, the aforesaid resolution of the Board of Management of the respondent No. 1-University dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) enhancing the age of superannuation of the teachers of the University from 60 to 62 years was sent by the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent No. 1-University to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for approval and orders of the Government were sought for implementing the same in the University. 10. There is also no dispute on the point that the State Government has not as yet taken any decision on the letter Annex.6 dated 10.12.2003 forwarding the resolution dated 15.11.2003 (Annex. 5) raising age of the superannuation of the teachers of the University (respondent No. 1) from 60 to 62 years and the matter is still pending consideration with the State Government. 11. There is also no dispute on the point that thorough impugned order Annex.13 dated 26.3.2004, the petitioner was ordered to be retired from University services on attaining the age of 60 years with effect from 31.10.2004, as according to the respondent No. 1-University, the Age of superannuation as it exists today was 60 years, as the Rule 56(a) of the Rules of 2000 prescribing the age of retirement as 60 years has not been amended so far, as per the Resolution of the Board of Management of respondent No. 1 dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) raising superannuation age from 60 to 62 years and that matter is still pending consideration with the State Government. 12. 12. The question for consideration is whether in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the theory of deemed approval, as put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to the resolution of the Board of Management of respondent No. 1-University dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) enhancing the superannuation age of teachers of respondent No. 1-University from 60 to 62 years, should be applied in the present case or not or whether the directions in the manner as sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition can be given by this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not. 13. Before proceeding further, something should be said about the word "deemed". 14. The word "deemed" means "supposed", "considered", "construed", "thought", "taken to be" or "presumed". [See Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. v. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 515 ]. 15. The word "deemed" is used a great deal in modern legislation in different senses and it is not that a deeming provision is every time made for the purpose of creating a fiction. A deeming provision might be made to include what is obvious or what is uncertain or to impose for the purpose of a statute an artificial construction of a word or phrase that would not otherwise prevail, but in each case it would be a question as to for what object the legislature has made such a deeming provision. 16. In St. Aubyn v. Attorney General, (1951) 2 All ER 473 , Lord Radcliffe observed that the word "deemed" is used a great deal in modern legislation. Sometimes it is used to impose for the purposes of a statute an artificial construction of a word or phrase that would not otherwise prevail. Sometimes it is used to put beyond doubt a particular construction that might otherwise be uncertain. Sometimes it is used to give a comprehensive description that includes what is obvious, what is uncertain and what is, in the ordinary sense, impossible. 17. In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., JT 2002(10) SC 55 , it was stated that the purpose and object of creating a legal fiction in the atute is well known. But when a legal fiction is created it must be given its full effect. 18. A legal fiction can be utilised in several ways wherein the word "deemed" is used. But when a legal fiction is created it must be given its full effect. 18. A legal fiction can be utilised in several ways wherein the word "deemed" is used. However, the mere use of the word "deemed" is not itself sufficient to set up a legal fiction as was held in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board, (1980) 3 SCR 625 stating that "the word "deemed" is used a great deal in modern legislation in different senses and it is not that a deemed provision is every time made for the purposes of creating a fiction. A deeming provision might be made to include what is obvious or what is uncertain or to impose for the purpose of a statute an artificial construction of a word or phrase that would not otherwise prevail, but in each case it would be a question as to with what object the legislature has made such a deeming provision". 19. These decisions, therefore, show that whenever a legal fiction is created by a statute, the same shall be given full effect. [See Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., JT 2004(1) SC 289 ]. 20. In the present case, there is no deeming provision under the Act of 2000 providing deemed approval to the proposal or resolution made by the Board of Management of the University and Section 39 of the Act of 2000 provides as to how statutes or rules are made or amended and for convenience, Section 39 of the Act of 2000 is quoted here : "39. Statutes how made - (1) Statutes under this Act shall be proposed by the Board and submitted to the Chancellor for his assent and shall come into force only after the assent is received and notified by the Vice-Chancellor. (2) Any Statute may be amended or repealed by the Board with the assent of the Chancellor. (3) All statutes made under this Act shall be published in the Official Gazette." 21. A bare perusal of above provisions of Section 39 of the Act of 2000 makes the position very clear that the proposal or Resolution of the Board of Management would take the force of law only when the final assent of the Chancellor is accorded and similarly, any rule can be amended with the assent of the Chancellor. 22. A bare perusal of above provisions of Section 39 of the Act of 2000 makes the position very clear that the proposal or Resolution of the Board of Management would take the force of law only when the final assent of the Chancellor is accorded and similarly, any rule can be amended with the assent of the Chancellor. 22. In the present case, the Board of Management of the respondent No. 1-University through resolution Annex.5 dated 15.11.2003 resolved to enhance the age of the teachers of the University from 60 to 62 years and that resolution Annex.5 has been sent by the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent No. 1-University to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan through letter Annex.6 dated 10.12.2003 for according approval and for conveying orders of the Government for implementing the same in the University. However, the State Government as well as the Chancellor have not accorded any assent or approval to the resolution/proposal made by the Board of Management of the respondent No. 1-University through Annex.5 dated 15.11.2003 enhancing the age of superannuation of teachers of University from 60 to 62 years and that matter is still pending consideration with them. 23. When there is a specific procedure as provided under section 39 of the Act of 2000 as to how a rule is to be amended or as to how the proposal of the Board of Management would take the force of law and for that procedure, the matter is still pending consideration with the State Government, therefore, the theory as put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the State Government as well as the Chancellor have not taken any decision on the resolution of the Board of Management of respondent No. 1-University dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) nor any reply has been given by them, therefore, it should be treated that the said proposal/resolution of the Board of Management of respondent No. 1-University dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) has been approved by them, cannot be accepted, because Section 39 of the Act of 2000 clearly speaks that proposal/resolution of the Board of Management shall come into force only when the assent is given by the Chancellor. Since in this case assent to the resolution/proposal of the Board of Management of respondent No. 1-University dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) raising superannuation age of teachers of the University from 60 to 62 years has not been given by the Chancellor, therefore, in absence of that, R. 56(a) of the Act of 2000, as it exists today, prescribing the superannuation age as 60 years shall remain in force. 24. Thus, when the R. 56(a) of the Act of 2000 prescribing the age of superannuation as 60 years has not been amended as per the Resolution of the Board of Management of respondent No. 1-University dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) and the matter pertaining to amendment of R. 56(a) of the Act of 2000 and approval to the resolution Annex.5 dated 15.11.2003 of the Board of Management of respondent No. 1-University enhancing the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years is pending consideration with the Government and the age of retirement as it exists today is 60 years, therefore, in these circumstances, if through impugned order Annex.13 dated 26.3.2004, the petitioner was ordered to be retired from University services on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.10.2004, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the respondent No. 1-University in passing the impugned order Annex.13. The action of the respondent No. 1-University retiring the petitioner on attaining the superannuation age of 60 years on 31.10.2004 through impugned order Annex.13 cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 25. Thus, the argument that since the State Government and the Chancellor have not taken any decision so far on the Resolution of the Board of Management of the respondent No. 1-University dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) nor any reply was given by them, therefore, that Resolution should be deemed to be approved by.them, stands rejected. 26. 25. Thus, the argument that since the State Government and the Chancellor have not taken any decision so far on the Resolution of the Board of Management of the respondent No. 1-University dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) nor any reply was given by them, therefore, that Resolution should be deemed to be approved by.them, stands rejected. 26. Similarly, the argument that since in some of the States, the Government has enhanced the superannuation age of teachers of' the Agricultural Universities from 60 to 62 years, therefore, on the same reasoning, directions be issued to the Government of Rajasthan to accord approval to the Resolution of the Board of Management of the respondent No. 1 dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) raising superannuation age from 60 to 62 years, cannot be accepted because this is a premature argument as the State Government has not taken any decision as yet and that matter is still pending consideration with the State Government. 27. For the reasons stated above, since the matter pertaining to enhancement of age of superannuation of the teachers of respondent No. 1-University from 60 to 62 years pursuant to Resolution of the Board of Management of respondent No. 1-University dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) and further, amendment in R. 56(a) of the Rules of 2000 as per Resolution Annex.5 of the Board of Management of respondent No. 1-University is still pending consideration with the State Government and the Chancellor and no decision has been taken by them as yet, therefore, this Court at this stage does not want to interfere with the impugned order Annex.13 dated 26.3.2004 retiring the petitioner from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years on 31.10.2004 as it does not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity. Hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.Whether this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can give directions to the State Government to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 years or not. 28. It may be stated here that fixing of retirement age is a matter of policy largely dependent on the 'felt need of the administration'. A matter of policy decision for the executive must be left to the consideration of the State Government. 29. 28. It may be stated here that fixing of retirement age is a matter of policy largely dependent on the 'felt need of the administration'. A matter of policy decision for the executive must be left to the consideration of the State Government. 29. In view of the above, s e the matter pertaining to enhancement of age of the teachers of the respondent No. 1-University from 60 to 62 years is pending consideration with the State Government and other concerned authorities and no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed, therefore, this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not issue directions to the State Government and other concerned authorities to accept the proposal/resolution of the Board of Management of respondent No. 1-University dated 15.11.2003 (Annex.5) enhancing the age of retirement of teachers of the University from 60 to 62 years.Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******