Judgment P.S. Asopa, J.-The present writ petition is directed against the order of Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institutions Tribunal dated 06.03.2003 whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short the Act of 1989) challenging the retirement order dated 31.01.2000 has been dismissed. 2. That the challenge to the said order of retirement dated 31.01.2000 was made on the ground that the said order has been passed on completion of 58 years of age whereas the petitioner is entitled to be retained in service up to 60 years of age. 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was first appointed as Lecturer (Zoology) on 07.07.1970 in the Mehrishi Dayanand P.G. College, Sriganganager. Thereafter on attaining the age of superannuation he was retired on 31.01.2000. 4. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that considering the University Ordinance 67-A and 68 as well as U.G.C. Pay Scale Rules, the petitioner is entitled to be retained in service up to the age of 60 years. The Tribunal has considered the said aspect of the matter and come to the conclusion that as per Rule 45 read with Rule 48 of the Rajasthan Non-Government (Educational Institution) Rules 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1993) the superannuation age is 58 years and the Ordinance 67-A will not govern the service condition of the petitioner which would be governed by Rule 16 of the Act of 1989 read with aforesaid Rules of 1993 and New Pay Scale Rules 1986. The relevant portion of the Judgment of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur is reproduced hereunder:- Þ12-bl izf {kd laLFkk fu;e] 1993 ds fu;e 48 esdkj ls jktLFkku xSj&ljdkjh Sk a vf /kokf "kZdh vk;q58 o"kZ jkT; ljdkj }kjk fuf pr dh x;h gSA mDr fu;e esa ;g Hkh izko/kku mYysf [kr fd;k gqvk gS fd mDr fu;e ds vUrxZr of .kZr izdkj ls vkosnu djus ij jkT; ljdkj deZpkjh dh vf /kokf "kZdh vk;q 60 o"kZ rd c<k dkj ls jkTLFkku xSj ljdkjh Skldrh gSA bl izf {kd laLFkk vf /kfu;e 1989 dh /kkjk 16 jkT; ljdkj dks xjSf {kd laZljdkjh Sk LFkkuksa esa dk;jr deZpkfj;kas dh lsok krksZa dks fu/kkZfjr djus dh kfDr nsrh gS vkSj bl izdkj j ljdkjh Skbl izko/kku esa o jktLFkku xSf {kd laLFkk fu;e 1993 ds fu;e 45 ds rgr jkT; ljdkj dks xSj ljdkjh Sk Zf {kd laLFkkuksa esa dk;jr deZpkfj;kas dh vf /kokf "kZdh vk;q fu;r djus dh kfDr nh xbZ gS] tks fd jktLFkku xSj ljdkjh Sk j ljdkjh Sk LFkkvksaf {kd laLFkk fu;e] 1993 ds fu;e 45 ds v/khu jktLFkku xSf {kd laesadk;Zjr deZpkfj;kasdh vf/kokf "kZdhvk;q58 o"kZfuf pr dh gqbZ gSA 13- pawfd izkFkhZ us uohu osdj.k ru J`a[kyk 1986 ds v/khu viuk fodYi ns fn;k gS blfy, izkFkhZ dk izjktLFkku foofo|ky; vkfMZusl 67 ¼,½ ls fu;a rk cfYd izkFkhZ dk izf =r ugha gksdj.k fu;e 1993 ds fu;e 45 o xzkUV bu ,M Vw ukWu xoZesaV bULV;wku :Yl 1963 ds fu;e 3 ¼16½ ls fu;af =r gksrk gSaA bl izdkj mDr fu;eksa ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dh lsokfuo`fr dh vf /kokf "kZdh vk;q 58 o"kZ gh gksrh gS vkSj mDr lhek vk;q izkIr djus ij izkFkhZ lsokfuo`r fd; stkus;ksX; gSA 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited the Judgment d of G.N. Tandon vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4758/1995 decided on 22nd of October, 1996, Managing Committee Shri Mahila Vidyapeeth Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidyalaya, Bhusawar vs. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 594/2000 decided on 21.02.2000 and the Judgment of Pyarelal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 349 of 1996 decided on 26th March 1999. 6. That the Single Bench of this Court in Dr. 6. That the Single Bench of this Court in Dr. S.K. Popli vs. The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal & Ors., reported in 2003(1) WLC (Raj.) 95, considered the three Division Bench Judgment s including the aforesaid Judgment s. Last of the Division Bench Judgment is Dr. Kailash Chandra Mittal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 544/1999 decided on 010.1999 which has been considered in Paras 8 to 10 and gave a categorical finding that Mohan Lal Jangid vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 1999 (2) RLW 1280 (Raj.) case will hold the field. The Judgement of Mohan Lal Jangid was also cited before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has considered all the Judgment s. Para Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of Dr. S.K. Poplis case (Supra), are reproduced hereunder for ready reference. “8. Yet another Judgment of the Division Bench delivered in the case of Dr. Kailash Chandra Mittal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 544/1999 decided on 010.1999 is there. In this case of Dr. Kailash Chandra Mittal, the case of Mohan Lal Jangid was considered and in Mohan Lal Jangids case, the case of G.N. Tandon was already considered. In the case of Dr. Kailash Chandra Mittal the Division Bench of this Court held as under:-“In our considered opinion, the Judgment given by this Court in Mohan Lal Jangids case (Supra) is sufficient authority to lay down that the petitioner was to be retired at the age of 58 because he has voluntarily entered into a personal contract with the respondents for retiring him at the age of 58, as he wanted to get the benefit of the revised pay scales, in view of this Judgment , we were not required to go into the question of Ordinance 67-A, but in the Judgment referred to above, the question of applicability of Ordinance 67-A was not gone into, therefore, we permitted the petitioner to address the Court on this aspect as well.” 9. A bare perusal of the Division Bench Judgment s in the cases of Mohan Lal Jangid 1999(2) RLW Raj. 1280 and in Dr. A bare perusal of the Division Bench Judgment s in the cases of Mohan Lal Jangid 1999(2) RLW Raj. 1280 and in Dr. Kailash Chandra Mittal, referred to above, the Division Bench gave preference to the contracts entered into between the employer and the institution and did not decide the question of applicability of Ordinance 67-A in the case of Mohan Lal Jangid, therefore, the Division Bench while deciding the case of Kailash Chandra Mittal permitted the petitioner to address on this aspect of the matter. The Division Bench in the case of Kailash Chandra Mittal considered the Ordinance 67-A and other provisions of law and held as under:-“The age of superannuation of an employee is a private contract in between the employee and the college. The petitioner in accepting new pay scales, has accepted the age of retirement as 58. The University Ordinance 67-A, has no role to play as discussed above. In view of the execution of Ordinance 67-A, the law laid down in Mohan Lal Jangids case (Supra), will hold the field.” 10. It is clear from the Division Bench Judgment delivered in the case of G.N. Tandon (Supra) that the Division Bench was of the opinion that when there is an agreement between the employee and the institution with respect to the age of retirement, it cannot be varied to the disadvantage of such an employee. It is clear from the Division Bench Judgment delivered in the case of G.N. Tandon (Supra) that the Division Bench was of the opinion that when there is an agreement between the employee and the institution with respect to the age of retirement, it cannot be varied to the disadvantage of such an employee. In the case of Mohan Lal Jangid (Supra), another Division Bench did not address on the effect of Rule 45(1) and (2) of the Rules of 1993 and effect of Ordinance 67-A of the Rajasthan University Ordinances in view of the agreement between the employee and the institution., When this situation was came before the third Division Bench in the case of Kailash Chandra Mittal (Supra), the Division Bench considered the ambit and effect of the Ordinance 67-A alongwith the relevant provisions of law as well as rules framed thereunder which includes grant-in-aid to Non-Government Educational Cultural and Physical Education Institutions in Rajasthan, 1963, the provisions of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 which was given effect from 01.01.1993 and the rules known as Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules 1993 and, after considering all above provisions held that “framing of Ordinance 67-A was never authorized by the Act of 1946 to give any power to the University to frame the service conditions of Government aided private colleges teachers” and further held as under:-“In the light of above decision, it can be unhesitatingly held that the legislature has given power to the State Government to fix the age of superannuation. The State has fixed it as 58. The employees have also opted for 58. In this background, Ordinance 67-A of the University has no role to play.” and concluded that:-“The age of superannuation of an employee is a private contract in between the employee and the college. The petitioner in accepting new pay scales, has accepted the age of retirement as 58. The University Ordinance 67-A has no role to play.” The Division Bench further held:-“In view of the exclusion of ordinance, the law laid down in case of Mohan Lal Jangids case (Supra), will hold the field.” 7. Thus, there is no doubt regarding power of fixation of retirement age of non-Government educational institutions is with the Government and the University Ordinance 67-A has no role to play. Thus, there is no doubt regarding power of fixation of retirement age of non-Government educational institutions is with the Government and the University Ordinance 67-A has no role to play. One more reason particularly in this case is that the petitioner has opted New Revised Pay Scale Rules 1986 whereas there is condition of retirement on attaining 58 years of age. 8. I have considered the above mentioned submissions made by Counsel for the petitioner and gone through the Judgment s and record of the case. 9. The Tribunal has rightly considered Rule 45 read with Rule 48 of the Rules of 1993 for prescribing the superannuation age for the teachers. Another reason given by the Tribunal is that since the New Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1986 have been opted by the petitioner, therefore, his case would not be governed by Ordinance 67-A and the same would be governed by Rule 45 read with Rule 48 of the Rules of 1993. The Judgment of Dr. S.K. Popli and Mohan Lal Jangid cited by the Government before the Tribunal have been considered. I find no error in the Judgment of Tribunal and the writ petition is dismissed alongwith stay application.