JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Six petitioners working as teachers at Obera Inter College, Obera, District Sonbhadra (hereinafter referred to as "College” in short) have approached this Court against the respondents complaining against their action of retiring the petitioners at the age of 58 years, through, as contended by the petitioners, they are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 62 years. Consequently, notice dated 12.1.2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy General Manager, U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “UPRVUNL” in short), working as Manager of the College informing the petitioners that they would retire on 30.6.2004 on attaining the age of 58 years has been challenged in this petition. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present writ petition are that the College was established as a government school by Irrigation Department of the State Government, but after establishment of Thermal Generation Units at Obera, the aforesaid institution was taken over by U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “UPSEB" in short) sometimes in the year 1969 and since thereafter, is being run by the management, who are the officers of the Obera Thermal Power Station, which earlier was owned by UPSEB and since 14.1.2004 by UPRVUNL. The college is a duly recognized educational institution by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1921) and the petitioners are employed as teachers in the college having been appointed on 1.7.1969, 1.7.1969, 9.8.1972, 25.6.1967, 1.9.1971 and 1.8.1968 respectively. The college is a duly recognized educational institution by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1921) and the petitioners are employed as teachers in the college having been appointed on 1.7.1969, 1.7.1969, 9.8.1972, 25.6.1967, 1.9.1971 and 1.8.1968 respectively. Though as per the petitioners, the conditions of service of the teachers of the College are governed by the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921, wherein the age of retirement was earlier 60 years and now 62 years, but the College management, are acting under the impression that the petitioner are governed by the provisions applicable to the employees of erstwhile UPSEB framed under Section 79(C) of Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1948), wherein the age of retirement is 58 years and, therefore, have proceeded to retire them on attaining the age of 58 years, which, according to the petitioners, is illegal, since, they are governed by the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 and are entitled to continue till they attain the age of 62 years. 3. On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavit has been filed stating that earlier the College was being managed by the UPSEB and now by UPRVUNL. The employees of the college are governed by the U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Shiksha Seva Niymavali, 1995 framed by erstwhile UPSEB under Section 79(C) of Act of 1948, wherein the age of retirement is 58 years and, therefore, the petitioners have rightly been sought to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. It has also been stated that the Board for its employees had statutory power to frame regulations with respect to recruitment conditions of service, which includes the teachers and other staff of an educational institution of the UPSEB and statutory provisions having been made under Section 79(C) of the Act of 1948, the same cannot be made subservient to the provisions of the State Act like Act of 1921 or the regulations framed thereunder and, therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners upon Regulation 21 of Chapter Ill of the Regulations, under the Act of 1921 is clearly misplaced and provisions made under the Act of 1948 would override the provisions of Act of 1921. 4. 4. The petitioners have also filed a supplementary affidavit as well as rejoinder affidavit wherein besides reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition, it has also been stressed that the college in question is receiving grant-in-aid under the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1971” in short), as is apparent from the letter dated 30.1.2006 issued by the Finance Controller, Directorate of Education, U.P., Allahabad addressed to District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi and Sonbhadra communicating sanction of grant of Rs. 48,20,830/- for the College under the Act of 1971. Further, a copy of the amendment notification dated 6.1.2005 has been appended, whereby Regulation 21 Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 has been amended by substitution altering the age of retirement from 60 to 62 years. 5. Heard Sri Vinod Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra for the respondents. 6. Though the respondents have taken a general stand that the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 are not at all applicable to the petitioners and they are governed by the statutory provisions framed by the erstwhile UPSEB in exercise of its power under Section 79(C) of the Act of 1948, but it is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties that this question has already been decided in a number of cases, wherein UPSEB and UPRVUNL were also parties, holding that the conditions of service of the teachers working in the recognized institution managed by the UPSEB or UPRVUNL would be governed by the Regulations framed under Act of 1921 and not under the Regulations framed under Act of 1948. Some of the judgments are also on record, namely, Writ Petition No. 24222 of 1999 (Daroga Singh and others v. UPSEB and others) decided on 4.10.2002, Writ Petition No. 35792 of 1996 (Smt. Shaila Garg v. UPSEB and another) and other connected matter decided on 30.5.1997 and Writ Petition No. 9244 of 1995 (Ravindra Nath Pandey v. Secretary, UPSEB and others) decided on 10.9.1999. Of course, all the judgments have been rendered by Hon’ble Single Judges and it is informed by Sri Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondents, that in many matters, Special Appeals have been filed, which are pending before this Court, but the judgments of the Hon’ble Single Judges holding that the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 are applicable to the teachers of the recognized college of erstwhile UPSEB have not been stayed in the pending Special Appeals. The nature of the interim orders passed in Special Appeal are that the beneficiaries in case loose the matters in Special Appeals will have to refund the entire salary to the employers for the period subsequent to the date, when they attain the age of 58 years. Thus, the situation, as it stands today, is that all the judgments of the Hon’ble Single Judges have precedential value and are binding on all the coordinate benches. I also do not find any reason to take a different view and, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that for the purpose of age of retirement, the provisions under Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 will govern the age of retirement of the petitioners. 7. However, the matter does not rest here, since the present case has a further complication, which has arises on account of amendment of Regulation 21 Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 enhancing the age of retirement from 60 to 62 years. Ordinarily, since the amendment made by the notification dated 6.1.2005 substituting existing Regulation 21 of Chapter III by a new one, also would have governed by the same principle as already declared in the various judgments of this Court holding the aforesaid Regulation to be applicable to the employees of the recognized college of the respondents, but the learned Counsel for the respondents have tried to persuade this Court not to follow the aforesaid principle for the purpose of amended Regulation 21 in the case in hand. 8. 8. Sri Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondents, drew attention of the Court to the Government order dated 4.2.2004 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the Principal Secretary, U.P. Government addressed to the Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. Allahabad and Lucknow communicating its decision to extend the age of retirement of the teachers working on the post created by the State Government in non government-aided institutions and, therefore, conveyed its approval for amendment of the Regulation increasing the age of retirement from 60 to 62 years for such teachers. He further drew attention of the Court to the letter dated 6.1.2005 appended to the notification amending Regulation 21 which also provides that it pertains to the alternation in age of retirement of the teachers working in non-government aided secondary institutions. Relying upon the aforesaid government order and letter, Sri Mehrotra proceeded to contend that the approval of the Government to amend regulation pertaining to age of retirement of teachers was restricted to the category of only such teachers, who were working against the posts created by the State Government in non-government aided institutions and therefore, the aforesaid amendment is not applicable to all the recognized institutions whether aided or unaided. He further submitted that the College in question managed by the UPSEB and now UPRVUNL is a non government unaided institution and, therefore, the aforesaid amendment would have no application to the College of the respondents, To buttress his submission, Sri Mehrotra relied upon the principles of statutory interpretation permitting external aid, i.e., statement of objects and reasons. notings, attending circumstances preceding the amendments etc. notings, attending circumstances preceding the amendments etc. and placed reliance on the following law laid down by the Honble Apex Court : (1) Henrietta Muir Edwards and others v. Attorney General of Canada and others, AIR 1930 PC 120, (2) Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India and others, AIR 1951 SC 41 , (3) D.N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee and others, AIR 1953 SC 58 , (4) Hariprasad Shivshanker Shukla and another v. A.D. Divelkar and others, AIR 1957 SC 121 , (5) R.L. Arora v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1964 SC 1230 , (6) M/s. Sanghvi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand and others v. Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains and Kirana Merchants Workers Union and another, AIR 1969 SC 530 , and (7) M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1988 SC 782 . 9. On the contrary, Sri Vinod Sinha disputing the aforesaid submission, vehemently contended that the amendment of Regulation 21 is nothing but a substitution of the existing provision by a new one. A bare reading of amended Regulation 21 does not show that it is applicable to a limited category of the teachers. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners are entitled to be governed by the amended Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act to 1921. 10. The short controversy, therefore, involved in the case as is whether Regulation 21 Chapter III as amended by notification dated 6.1.2005 is applicable to all the categories of recognized institution or not including the college run by the respondents. 11. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to reproduce Regulation 21 Chapter III of the Regulations as it was prior to its amendment vide notification dated 6.1.2005 : “21. Superannuation age of Principal, Headmaster, Teacher and other employees, would be 60 years. If abovesaid superannuation age of any Principal, Headmaster and Teacher falls on any date in between 2nd July and 30th June, except in the conditions when he himself, before two months of the date of superannuation, furnishes in writing the information for not seeking extension of service, extension of service up to 30th June shall be deemed to be conferred on him so that after summer vacation, substitute can be arranged in the month of July. In addition to this, extension of service could be granted only in such special cases, which may be decided by the State Government. If date of superannuation of any clerk of fourth class employee falls in the middle of any month, his extension of service would be deemed to be given up to the last date of that month. But if the date of appointment of any employee falls on the first date of any month, he shall be retired on the last date of the preceding month.” 12. The State Government issued order dated 4.2.2004 communicating its approval for amendment of the Regulation permitting enhancement in the age of retirement of teachers from 60 to 62 years, but in the aforesaid Government Order, it clearly mentions that the said decision has been taken in respect to the teachers working on the post created by the State Government in non-government aided secondary educational institutions. It also direct that all Government Orders issued in the past shall be deemed to be amended to the extent as provided in the aforesaid Government Order and also directed the Director of Education to take action for amendment of Regulation 21 under Intermediate Education Act, 1921 within 30 days from the date of issuance of the aforesaid Government Order. It also direct that all Government Orders issued in the past shall be deemed to be amended to the extent as provided in the aforesaid Government Order and also directed the Director of Education to take action for amendment of Regulation 21 under Intermediate Education Act, 1921 within 30 days from the date of issuance of the aforesaid Government Order. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant extract of the Government Order: Þkklu }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd vkkldh; lgk;rk izkIr mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa kklu }kjk l`ftr inksa ij fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zjr v/;kidksa dh orZeku vf/ko"kZrk vk;q esa o`f) dj nh tk;sA vr% Jh jkT;iky egksn; rkRdkfyd izHkko ls vkkldh; lgk;rk izkIr mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa kklu }kjk l`ftr inksa ij fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zjr v/;kidksa dh orZeku vrf/ko"kZrk vk;q dks 60 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 62 o"kZ fd;s tkus dh lg"kZ LohÑfr iznku djrs gSaA QyLo:i 58 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij feyus okys lsok fuo`fÙk ykHk vc 60 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij rFkk 60 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij feyus okys lsok fuo`fÙk ykHk 6+2 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij vuqeU; gksaxsA Jh jkT;iky egksn; ;g Hkh vknsk iznku djrs gSa] fd mls fk{kk 1 tqykbZ] 2003 ds ipkr vf/ko"kZrk vk;q iw.kZ dj l=kar ykHk ij py jgs gSa mUgsa Hkh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q laca/kh ykHk iznku fd;k tk;sxkA bl laca/k esa iwoZ esa fuxZr leLr kkluknsk mDr lhek rd lakksf/kr le>s tk;saxs rFkk mudh ks"k krsZa ;Fkkor jgsaxhA m0 iz0 b.VjehfM,V ,tqdsku ,DV ds laxr fu;eksa esa vko;d lakks/ku dh dk;Zokgh kkluknsk tkjh gksus ds 30 fnu ds vUnj lqfufpr dj yh tk;sxhAß 13. It appears that subsequently there was some further correspondence between the Government and Education Department whereafter vide notification dated 6.1.2005, though in the subject it mentions about amendment in the age of retirement of teachers of non-government aided institution, but in the contents part of the notification, it states that the Hon’ble Governor has approved the amendment of Regulation 21, Chapter III framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 in the manner as contained in the Annexure to the said notification and the amended Regulation 21 reads as under : Þvkpk;Z] iz/kkuk/;kid] v/;kidksa dk vf/ko"kZ o; 62 o"kZ gksxkA QyLo:i 58 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk ij feyus okys lsok uSo`fÙkd ykHk vc 60 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij rFkk 60 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij feyus okys lsok uSo`fÙkd ykHk 62 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij vuqeU; gksaxsA ;fn fdlh vkpk;Z] iz/kkuk/;kid vFkok v/;kid dk mi;qZDr vf/ko"kZ o; 2 tqykbZ vkSj 30 twu ds e/; esa fdlh frfFk dks iM+rk gS rks mls] ml nkk dks NksM+dj tcfd og Lo;a lsok foLrj.k u ysus gsrq fyf[kr lwpuk vius vf/ko"kZ o; dh frfFk ls 2 ekg iwoZ ns nsa] 30 twu rd lsok fuLrj.k Lo;eso iznku fd;k x;k le>k tk;sxk rkfd xzh"ekodkk ds mijkUr tqykbZ esa izfrLFkkuh dh O;oLFkk gks ldsA blds vfrfjDr lsok foLrj.k dsoy mUgha fofk"V nkkvksa esa iznku fd;k tk ldsxk] tks jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sA vU; deZpkfj;ksa ds fo"k; esa vf/kfu;e esa fn;s x;s izkfo/kku ;Fkkor jgsaxsAß 14. A bare perusal of Regulation 21 as amended vide notification dated 6.1.2005 does not warrant any restricted application to the category of teachers. A plain reading of Regulation 21 as amended would show that all the teachers and principals, who were liable to retire at the age of 58 years would now retire at the age of 60 years and those who were to retire at the age of 60 years would now retire at the age of 62 years and would be entitled for all the retiral benefits, accordingly. It also provides that if the teachers and principals retire on a date between 2nd July to 30th June and have not expressed their desire against extension, would continue till 30th June i.e. end of the Session. Regulation 21 amended by the notification dated 6.1.2005 substituted the existing Regulation 21. It also provides that if the teachers and principals retire on a date between 2nd July to 30th June and have not expressed their desire against extension, would continue till 30th June i.e. end of the Session. Regulation 21 amended by the notification dated 6.1.2005 substituted the existing Regulation 21. It is not disputed that Regulation 21 as it stood prior to notification dated 6.1.2005 was applicable to all teachers and principals of recognized institutions whether aided or unaided. After substitution of Regulation 21 vide notification dated 6.1.2005, there is no other provision in respect to superannuation age of principals, head masters and teachers of the recognized institutions whether aided or unaided. The very first obstacle in accepting the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that if the interpretation as suggested by him is followed, it would result as if now, on and after 6.1.2005, there is no provision or Regulation framed under Intermediate Education Act, 1921 providing age of superannuation of Principals, Head Masters, Teachers and other employees of recognized unaided institutions. I do not find any reason, therefore, to accept a construction which not only restrict the plain and simple application of the statute but also create vacuum leaving no provision in respect to age of retirement of teachers of recognized, unaided non-government institutions relegating them to the mercy of the management, particularly, when there is no compulsion to take such a view from a bare reading of statute itself. 15. The Cardinal rule of construction is to find out the intention of the legislature in the words used by the legislature itself. The Court, in order to find out the intention of the statute framing authority must look into the statute itself without any assistance from any other external factor unless there is some doubt or ambiguity in the construction of the statute itself. It would be appropriate to remind in the words of Lord Brougham in Robert Wigram Crawford v. Richard Spooner, [4 MIA 179 (187) (PC)] “If the Legislature did intend that which it has not expressed clearly; much more, if the Legislature intended some thing very different; if the Legislature intended pretty nearly the opposite of what is said, it is not for judges to invent something, which they do not meet within the words of the text (aiding their construction of the text always, of course, by the contest). 16. 16. The Apex Court in S. Gurmej Singh v. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon, AIR 1960 SC 122 (128), also held that "the Courts are not to busy themselves with ‘supposed intention’ or with ‘the policy underlying the statute". But must construe the statute from plain meaning of the words used therein. In Aron Soloman v. A. Solomon & Co. Ltd., (1897) AC 22 (38) (HL), Lord Watson observed : “In a Court of law or equity, what the Legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that which it has chosen to enact, either in express words or by reasonable and necessary implication.” The aforesaid passage has been quoted with approval by the Apex Court in R.L. Arora v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1230 (1244); Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. Workers Union, AIR 1969 SC 513 (759); Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, AIR 1970 SC 755 (759); Sri Umed v. Raj Singh, AIR 1975 SC 43 (63/64), Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Super Cotton Bowl Refilling Works, AIR 1989 SC 922 (930); State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.S. Dall and Flour Mills, AIR 1991 SC 772 (785) and Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India, AIR 2002 SC 1351 (1356). 17. No doubt, in case of any doubt, if it arises from a bare reading of statute about the correct intention of the legislature or if the plain meaning of the statute results in some such consequences, which the legislature could not have intended or for any other similar reason, it is permissible to look for external aid, namely, statement of objects and reason, attending circumstances before enactment of the statute and other relevant materials, but where there is no ambiguity at all, whatsoever and the meaning of the statute is clear and simple, there is no requirement of any such assistance. In my opinion, it would not be appropriate to restrict the normal extent and application of the statute by referring to attending circumstances or notings or executive letters, which are claimed to be the reason for such enactment. 18. In my opinion, it would not be appropriate to restrict the normal extent and application of the statute by referring to attending circumstances or notings or executive letters, which are claimed to be the reason for such enactment. 18. The rules of interpretation are not rules of laws and are not to be followed like the rules enacted by legislature in an Interpretation Act as observed by the Apex Court in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1967 SC 997 . The principles for interpretation serve only as a guide. 19. In all the cases relied by learned Counsel for the respondents, the Courts have clearly said that in case of doubt or ambiguity, the external aid may be looked into and the intention of the legislature may be discern therefrom. However, in none of the case, it has been stated that if the statute is otherwise clear from a plain and simple reading thereof, still by taking recourse to external material, its extent and application should be or can be narrowed down. 20. Regulation 21 Chapter III as it enacted provided the age of superannuation of the teachers and staff of a recognized institution whether aided or unaided. Earlier the age of retirement was 58 years, which was subsequently enhanced to 60 years. By notification dated 6.1.2005, the entire Regulation 21 Chapter III has been amended by substitution and the age of superannuation has been increased to 62 years. It may be that for increasing the age of superannuation, the State Government might have impelled to increase the age by taking into account the case of recognized aided non-government institutions, but in the actual amendment made in the Regulation, it has not restricted the amended provision to a particular set of teachers or staff, but the entire provision has been amended without using any word suggesting restricted application. 21. As noticed above, the amendment by substitution has the effect of wiping out the earlier Regulation 21 Chapter III from statute and adding a new provision. Admittedly, the earlier provision prescribed age of retirement for teachers and other staff of all recognized institution whether aided or unaided. 21. As noticed above, the amendment by substitution has the effect of wiping out the earlier Regulation 21 Chapter III from statute and adding a new provision. Admittedly, the earlier provision prescribed age of retirement for teachers and other staff of all recognized institution whether aided or unaided. If the manner in which learned Counsel for the respondents has suggested the interpretation of amended Regulation 21 of Chapter III is accepted, it would result as if there is no age of retirement for the teachers and staff of recognized unaided institutions meaning thereby either they would continue to serve irrespective of any restriction of age of retirement or their continuance in service would depend upon the sweet will of the management. Reason for omitting statutory provision providing age of retirement of recognized unaided institution is also not understandable. The Court has no reason to believe that the State Government intended not to provide any age of retirement for the staff of recognized unaided non-government institutions. It is well settled that a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court. There is no presumption that a casus omissus exists and language permitting the Court should avoid creating a casus omissus where there is none. It would be appropriate to recollect the observations of Devlin, L.J. in Gladstone v. Bower, (1960) 3 All ER 353(CA) : “The Court will always allow the intention of a statute to override the defects of wording but the Court’s ability to do so is limited by recognized canons of interpretation. The Court may, for example, prefer an alternative construction which is less well fitted to the words but better fitted to the intention of the Act. But here, there is no alternative construction; it is simply a case of something being overlooked. We cannot legislate for casus omissus.........." 22. The Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply v. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548 (561) quoted with approval the following observation of Lord Simonds in the case of Magor & St. Mellons R.D.C. v. Newport Corporation, (1951) 2 All ER 839 (841). "The duty of the Court is to interpret the words that the Legislature has used. Those words may be ambiguous, but, even if they are, the power and duty of the Court to travel outside them on a voyage of discovery are strictly limited.” 23. Mellons R.D.C. v. Newport Corporation, (1951) 2 All ER 839 (841). "The duty of the Court is to interpret the words that the Legislature has used. Those words may be ambiguous, but, even if they are, the power and duty of the Court to travel outside them on a voyage of discovery are strictly limited.” 23. It would be appropriate at this stage to remind another principle that though a Court cannot supply a real casus omissus, it is equally evident that it should not so interpret a statute as to create casus omissus when there is really none. Therefore, the general proposition laid down in the various judgments sought to be relied by the learned Counsel for the respondents admits no doubt, but, in my view, the said principles have no application in the case in hand, since, the Regulation 21 Chapter III as amended by notification dated 6.1.2005 admits no ambiguity, doubt etc. and, therefore, it does not require any external aid for interpretation for the extent of its application to the concerned persons. 24. In this view of the matter, I am clearly of the view that Regulation 21 Chapter III as amended by notification dated 6.1.2005 is applicable to Teachers, Principals and Head Masters of all recognized institutions whether aided or unaided and otherwise contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is, therefore, rejected. 25. Once it is found that Regulation 21 Chapter III as amended by notification dated 6.1.2005 is applicable to a recognized unaided non-government institution, rest of the matter is already covered by the various earlier judgments of this Court providing that the teachers of recognized educational institutions of the respondents are also governed by the Regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act, 1921 including provision regarding age of retirement, subject, of course, to the decisions of the Court in the pending Special Appeals. 26. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 12.1.2004 communicating the petitioners regarding their retirement on attaining the age of 58 years is quashed and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to continue in service in accordance with Regulation 21 Chapter III of the Regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as amended by notification dated 6.1.2005. 27. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. ———