JUDGMENT 1. - A joint request, matter since involving common facts is finally heard and disposed of together at admission stage by this order. 2. Basic question-arising for consideration is as to whether State Government is under legal obligation to grant extension of service to Teacher whose case either has been recommended or not by aided educational institutions U/r 45 of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid & service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 Rules 1993"). 3. Petitioners were working as Teachers in recognised & aided educational institutions. On completion of age of superannuation which is 60 years, they were retired from service as provided U/r 45 of Rules, 1993. In CWP 9428/2006 & 8430/2006, petitioners submitted their applications seeking extension of service upto age of 62 years, which were forwarded by their College Principal but were not recommended by Management of their educational institutions; while in CWP 7467/2006 (Bhagwan Singh) & 6800/2006 (LN Khatri), Management of educational institutions recommended cases for extension of services of petitioners. Bhagwan Singh himself working as Principal of College has participated in meeting of the Management in which his case was recommended. But in cases of both the petitioners, ibid, State Government declined to grant extension of their services for further two years after attaining 60 years age of superannuation vide orders dated 25.07.06 (Ann. 5) & 15.07.06 (Ann. 12). Hence these petitions. 4. Counsel for petitioners have basically raised objection that in view of recommendations made by University Grants Commission ('UGC') in the year 1988, having been forwarded to all the Universities, 62 years is the age of superannuation for Teachers and since all recognised & aided educational institutions are working as per norms prescribed by the UGC, age of superannuation stands enhanced from 60 to 62 years. 5. As the issue seeking enhancement of age of superannuation on the basis of recommendations of the UGC has been turned down by this Court in Dr. Dhanpat Raj Bhandari v. Union of India, CWP 23/2005 decided on 15.11.2006 at principal seat Jodhpur and in Dr. Renuka Pamecha v. State, CWP 7462 decided on 8.12.2006 at Jaipur Bench , . 5. As the issue seeking enhancement of age of superannuation on the basis of recommendations of the UGC has been turned down by this Court in Dr. Dhanpat Raj Bhandari v. Union of India, CWP 23/2005 decided on 15.11.2006 at principal seat Jodhpur and in Dr. Renuka Pamecha v. State, CWP 7462 decided on 8.12.2006 at Jaipur Bench , . hence Counsel for petitioners confined their submissions only with regard to scope of Rule 45 of Rules, 1993, which empowers State Government to consider cases of extension of service beyond age of superannuation upto a period of two years, if satisfied to special circumstances come forward on record. Rule 45 duly substituted by Amendment Rules, 2004 being made effective from 30.06.04 vide Notification dated 30.06.04 (Ann. 8-CWP 7467/06) reads as under : "2. Amendment of Rule 45.- The existing sub-rule (i) of Rule 45 of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service conditions etc.) Rules, 1993, shall be substituted by the following namely : (1) the age of superannuation of teachers and other employees shall be the last date of the month in which they attain age of 60 years. In special circumstances, the Government may waive this condition and allow extension in service for a period not exceeding 2 years of such college teachers, who are engaged in post graduate teaching or research work. Any other employee of the Institution may also be allowed extension in service upto age of 62 years by the State Government." 6. Sarva Shri Mahendra Singh & Mahendra Goyal, both the Counsel for all the petitioners jointly contend that Rule 45 of Rules, 1993 casts legal obligation upon State Government to consider cases for grant of extension of services of college Teachers for further two years; and once applications have been forwarded/submitted by Teachers seeking extension of their service, the Management is also under obligation to forward the same and the State Government to examine such cases individually as to whether services of Teachers are to be extended or not; but policy decision having been taken by State Government is not to grant extension to any of college Teachers is wholly arbitrary and such action is in clear violation of Rule 45 of Rules, 1993. 7. 7. Counsel further submits that once special circumstances for grant of extension have been considered by Management of their institutions and being duly forwarded to State Government, the authority competent is under legal obligation to examine and take its independent decision as to whether such special circumstances referred to by the Management alongwith recommendations are acceptable or not and if comes to conclusion otherwise, reasons are to be assigned; whereas State Government has rejected applications in both the cases only on the premise that as per their policy decision, their application stand rejected, such action cannot be said to be in consonance with scheme U/r 45 of Rules, 1993, which provides a particular mode for examining such application submitted for extension, which has not been adopted, therefore, such decision is per se bad and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. Shri Mahendra Singh, Counsel for petitioners also submits that in certain cases, extension has been granted by State Government as is evident from documents (Ann. 9-14 alongwith rejoinder in CWP 7467/06); therefore, action of respondents in denying the same in cases of instant petitioners despite their College Management having recommended in their favour, is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of contentions, Counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Apex Court in U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Mohd. Ismail, 1991 (3) SCC 239 , L. Hirday Narain v. ITO Bareilly, AIR 1971 SC 33 and this Court in Ravinder Nath v. State, 1992 (3) WLC (Raj.) 153 . 9. Per contra, Counsel for respondent State & the Institutions jointly submit that if applications have not been forwarded by College Management, which is pre-requisite condition & requirement under sub-rule (vi) to R. 45 of Rules, 1993 but if Management, itself, is not satisfied and not inclined to consider cases for extension, State Government is not obliged to yet consider such cases in terms of Rule 45. As regards cases where recommendations have been made by the Management, Counsel submits that it is only for consideration and the Government is not under legal obligation to grant extension merely because the Management has recommended their cases and that apart, the Government being competent authority, if finds and satisfies of special circumstances put forward by the Committee but only in cases of such Teachers who are engaged in post graduate teaching or research works, for which their services are required in the interest of students at large of the institutions then the extension can be considered. Counsel submits that In cases the State Government takes decision to adopt and made It applicable in all cases keeping In view the Increasing unemployment and availability of youth manpower for their employment and that apart, Teachers working in the Government Colleges too are retired at the age of 60 years in whose cases also; no extension is granted, such uniform standards has to be followed for aided institutions as well as such action impugned cannot be said to be in contravention of Rule 45 of Rules, 1993; inasmuch as in absence of any special circumstances being come forward or recommended by the Management, even otherwise extension of services cannot be claimed by incumbent as a matter of right as neither it affects either of service conditions nor his legal right is infringed. Counsel also submits that after State Government took such uniform decision not to grant extension of service to any employee of aided institution, it being rational action made applicable only for the reason keeping in view increasing unemployment and so as to utilise potentiality of youth manpower, cannot be held to be in violation of constitutional mandate or Rules, 1993. 10. As regards grant of extension in cases referred to in Ann. 9-14, Counsel for respondents submits that those cases were of much before the decision impugned taken by State Government wherein individual cases were earlier considered and found that there were special circumstances for extension of service duly recommended by the institutions and that being so, earlier decision taken by State Govt. in few of cases does not help any of petitioners because of the reason that decision impugned of State Government is rationally applied and petitioners have failed to show any individual cases where the State considered cases after the decision impugned. 11. in few of cases does not help any of petitioners because of the reason that decision impugned of State Government is rationally applied and petitioners have failed to show any individual cases where the State considered cases after the decision impugned. 11. I have considered rival contentions made by Counsel for both the parties and with their assistance scanned the material on record. Indisputably, sub-rule (i) to Rule 45 was amended vide notification cit. 30.06.04 (Ann. 8), as per which age of superannuation of Teachers & other employees of educational institutions is 60 years but in special circumstances, power is vested with State Government to waive this condition and allow extension in service for a period not exceeding 2 years but such condition of waiving is applicable only with regard to Teachers who are engaged in post graduate teaching or research work. Thus it Is subjective satisfaction and discretion of State Government to take decision as to whether one deserves extension in service but as regards an individual Teacher, extension cannot be claimed by him as a matter of right. Contrarily, State Government if considers special circumstances put forward in interest of students and public at large, it may consider for grant of extension for further two years beyond age of superannuation. But in instant case when State Government took decision which has been made rationally applicable keeping in view increasing unemployment and utilisation of potentiality of youth manpower for their employment and other identical Teachers working in Government Colleges who are retired at 60 years which is their age of superannuation and the same standard is being followed in cases of Teachers/employers engaged in the aided recognised institutions. In my considered opinion, once such an extension cannot be claimed by Teacher as a matter of right, Government decision on the other hand cannot be said to be irrational or violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and so also in breach of Rule 45 of Rules, 1993. No doubt procedure has been provided in sub-rule (vi) to Rule 45 but it is only for the purposes of apprising the State Government and merely because the Institution has recommended cases for extension, that cannot give any legal right to an incumbent to seek extension nor is there any legal obligation casted upon State Government to grant such extension sought in such cases. However, this cannot be ruled out at this stage that if discretion vested with State Government for grant of extension is abused by arbitrary exercise of power even if it being an administrative decision can always be examined by this Court under its power of judicial review in extra ordinary jurisdiction U/Art. 226 of the Constitution. I do not find any error or arbitrariness being apparently committed by State Government in taking decision impugned; and the refusal communicated to petitioners in no manner can be said to be in violation of Art. 14 of Constitution of India or of R. 45 of Rules, 1993. 12. Judgment in UP SRTC v. Mohd. Ismail (supra) on which reliance has been placed on behalf of petitioners is of no assistance. It was a case where discretion was left with the authority to consider for alternative job to such employees whose services were dispensed with on account of their medical unfitness; but the Corporation failed to consider cases for conferring alternative job to them. Apex Court observed that once discretion is available with the Corporation to confer alternative job and if the same has to be declined, it is always obligatory upon the authority to which discretion is vested, to lay down Rules or norms of such discretion to be applied and regulated. Apex Court also observed that discretion has always to be examined reasonably and rationally whereas in instant case, discretion has not been exercised under whims and caprice but it has been rationally made applicable to all teachers who attained age of superannuation and in absence of special circumstances put forward and available with State Government. Rule 45 of Rule, 1993 in no manner can be said to be faulted or exercise of discretion has been misused or abuse by the authority competent. 13. Next judgment of this Court in Ravinder Nath v. State (supra) does also not help the petitioners. It was a case where interpretation of R. 24-A(15) of 1954 Rules come up before this Court where the State Government was made competent to issue instructions only with regard to employees who were put under suspension or departmental proceedings against them were under progress. It was a case where interpretation of R. 24-A(15) of 1954 Rules come up before this Court where the State Government was made competent to issue instructions only with regard to employees who were put under suspension or departmental proceedings against them were under progress. This Court observed that Circulars impugned were held ultra vires to Rule 24-A(15) in so far as they provided for application of sealed cover procedure even to those Government servants against whom departmental inquiry is proposed to be initiated and thus the judgment, ibid, in my opinion is of no assistance. 14. In L. Hirday v. Income Tax Officer Bareilly (supra) the Apex Court considered assessment in capacity as Hindu undivided family and it was a case where power U/s. 35 of Income Tax Act which is vested with the income tax officer to rectify mistake apparent on record. In my opinion, it is of no assistance to petitioners in instant case in view of controversy raised herein. Hence I find no force in these petitions. 15. Consequently, these writ petitions fail and hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim orders passed by this Court stand vacated. However, it is made clear that petitioners would not be entitled to any of benefits deriving out of the period of service during which they were allowed to work beyond age of superannuation under interim orders of this Court, except their salary for the said period. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******