JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J. 1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the Karmchari Sangh and Federation, seeking for a declaration that the Jharkhand State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2002, omitting Section 67(a) of Bihar/Jharkhand State Universities Act, 1976, and making the age of superannuation of the employees of the Universities to be 60 years is ultra vires and for issuance of further direction by way of declaration that the age of such employees of the Universities, who were appointed prior to commencement of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, shall be 62 years. 2. Though several points have been urged to quash the notification impugned in these petitions, we cannot give such a declaration with reference to the Jharkhand State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2002, as the prayer becomes infructuous on account of the fact that the said notification has been substituted by further amendment under the Amendment Act, 2005. 3. As per Section 67(a) of the Amendment Act, 2002, the age of retirement of teaching as well as non-teaching employees of the Universities or Colleges shall be 60 years. Now the Section 67(a) has been amended by the Jharkhand State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2005. As per the amended Section 67(a), the age of retirement of the teachers of the University or College is 62 years, whereas the age of retirement of non-teaching employees of the Universities remained at 60 years. The following is the Amendment Act, 2005: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Act, Rules or any judgment or decree of a Court, the date of retirement of teachers of University or College and those officers declared equivalent to them by the statute of the University, with effect from the date of notification of this Act in the official Gazette, shall be the date on which he/she attains the age of sixty-two years; the date of retirement of non-teaching employee shall be the date on which he/she attains the age of sixty years. The other writ petitions, W.P. (S) Nos. 2518/2007, 3561/2007 and 1640/2007, by individual non-teaching staff, have been filed challenging the notification issued under the Amendment Act, 2005. 4. So far as the non-teaching employees are concerned, their age of retirement had been reduced from 62 years to 60 years as per Amendment Act, 2002, but prior to this amendment, the age of retirement of non-teaching employees was 62 years as per Act 1976. 4. So far as the non-teaching employees are concerned, their age of retirement had been reduced from 62 years to 60 years as per Amendment Act, 2002, but prior to this amendment, the age of retirement of non-teaching employees was 62 years as per Act 1976. Therefore, though the Amendment Act, 2002 has been substituted by Amendment Act, 2005, one point urged in these writ petitions and also in those filed by individual non-teaching staff challenging Amendment Act, 2002 and Amendment Act, 2005 respectively survives as it is common in both sets. The said point is as follows: The petitioners being appointees prior to 1976 were entitled to retire on completion of 62 years as at the time of their appointment, the age of superannuation fixed for non-teaching employees was 62 years. By virtue of the Amendment either in 2002 of 2005, their existing right cannot be taken away by virtue of giving retrospective effect to the statutory provision. 5. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, though the main prayer made in these two writ petitions challenging the notification issued under Amendment Act, 2002, has become infructuous on account of the substitution of 2005 Act, this point referred to above still survives and the same can be decided in these writ petitions. 6. Accordingly let us now analyze the said point in these writ petitions. The legislative history of Section 67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, is as follows: (i) The original Section 67(a) reads as under 67. Retirement from service.--(a) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the date of retirement of any teaching or non-teaching employee, other than inferior servants, of the University or any College, shall be the date on which he attains the age of sixty years: Provided that such teachers, who do not opt for the pay- scales revised with effect from 1st day of January, 1973, and such non-teaching employees, who are in the service of University from a date prior to the commencement of this Act, shall retire after attaining the age of sixty-two years; Provided further that no University shall extend the period of service of or re-appoint any teaching or non-teaching employee after his completing the age of 60 or 62 years, as the case may be. (ii) By Amendment Act 3 of 1990, Section 67(a) was substituted, and after the substitution, the said Section 67(a) reads as under: 67. Retirement from service.--(a) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the date of retirement of a teaching employee of the University or of a college with effect from the 1st April, 1986 shall be the date on which he attains the age of 62 years. The date of retirement of non-teaching employee (other than inferior servant) shall be the date on which he attains the age of 60 years, but the date of retirement of such non-teaching employee who is in the service of the University prior to the commencement of this Act, shall be the date on which he attains the age of 62 years; Provided that the University shall, in no case, extend the period of service of any of the teaching or non-teaching employee or re-appoint him after he attains the age of 60 or 62 years as the case may be. (iii) Section 67(a) was again substituted by Act 17 of 1993 and thereafter, relevant Section 67(a) read as under: 67. Retirement from service.--(a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Act, Rules or any judgment or decree of a Court, the date of retirement of a teaching employee of the University or of a College shall be the date on which he attains the age of sixty years. Retirement from service.--(a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Act, Rules or any judgment or decree of a Court, the date of retirement of a teaching employee of the University or of a College shall be the date on which he attains the age of sixty years. The date of retirement of non- teaching employee (other than the inferior servants) shall be the date on which he attains the age of sixty years; Provided that the date of retirement of such non-teaching employee, who is in the service of the University prior to the commencement of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 23, 1976) shall be the date on which he attains the age of sixty- two years: Provided further that the University shall, in no case, extend the period of service of any of the teaching or non-teaching employee after he attains the age of sixty or sixty-two years, as the case may be: Provided further also that re-appointment of teachers after retirement may be made in appropriate case upto the age of sixty-five years in the manner laid down in the statutes made in this behalf in accordance with the guidelines of the University Grants Commission, (iv) There was no amendment subsequent to 1993 in Section 67(a), prior to its adoption by the newly created State of Jharkhand. 7. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, the said provision of Section 67(a) was amended by the Jharkhand State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2002 and the amended Section 67(a) read as under: In Section 67, for Sub-section (a), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Act, Rules or any judgment or decree of a Court, the date of retirement of teaching and non- teaching employee of the University or of a College shall be the date on which he/she attains the age of sixty years. Provided that appointment of teacher after retirement may be made in appropriate cases upto the age of sixty-five years in the manner laid down in the statute made in this behalf in accordance with the guidelines of the University Grants Commission. 8. Provided that appointment of teacher after retirement may be made in appropriate cases upto the age of sixty-five years in the manner laid down in the statute made in this behalf in accordance with the guidelines of the University Grants Commission. 8. The said Section 67(a) was again amended by the Jharkhand State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the amended Section 67(a) reads as under: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Act, Rules or any judgment or decree of a Court, the date of retirement of teachers of University or College and those officers declared equivalent to them by the statute of the University, with effect from the date of notification of this Act in the official Gazette, shall be the date on which he/she attains the age of sixty-two years; the date of retirement of non-teaching employee shall be the date on which he/she attains the age of sixty years. 9. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, as indicated above, once a right has accrued in favour of the petitioners, the same cannot be unilaterally withdrawn and therefore, non-teaching employees cannot be retired till they attain the age of 62 years. 10. This argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners does not merit acceptance. As indicated above, under Section 67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, the date of retirement of any teaching or non-teaching employee of the University or a College shall be the date on which he attains the age of sixty years. Under the proviso, such teacher, who does not opt for the pay scale revised with effect from 1.1.1993 and such a non-teaching employee, who is in the service of the University from a date prior to the commencement of this Act, shall retire attaining the age of sixty-two years. This provision has been amended by Amendment Act 3 of 1990 by substitution of Section 67(a). Under this section, the age of retirement of teaching employee of the University or a College shall be sixty-two years and sixty years for non- teaching employee. Again Section 67 (a) was substituted by Act 17 of 1993. Under the substituted section, the age of retirement of both teaching and non-teaching employees was sixty years. Under this section, the age of retirement of teaching employee of the University or a College shall be sixty-two years and sixty years for non- teaching employee. Again Section 67 (a) was substituted by Act 17 of 1993. Under the substituted section, the age of retirement of both teaching and non-teaching employees was sixty years. The proviso says that the date of retirement of such non-teaching employee, who is in service of the University prior to the commencement of 1976 Act, shall be the date on which he attains sixty-two years. Further proviso says that in no case, the University shall extend the period of service of any teaching or non-teaching employee after he attains the age of sixty or sixty-two years. Even after creation of the State of Jharkhand, Section 67(a) has been amended by Act of 2002 by which the date of retirement of both teaching and non-teaching employees was fixed as sixty years. As indicated above, again it was amended under Act 5 of 2005 by which the age of retirement of teaching employee has been fixed as sixty-two years and for non-teaching employee, it has been fixed as sixty years. Thus, various amendments show that there have been fluctuations in fixing the age of superannuation by the Legislatures in respect of teaching employee and non-teaching employee, while issuing various notifications noted above. 11. It cannot be debated that the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 is a State Act and amendments in the said Act can be done only by an Act of the Legislature. Therefore, the State Legislature has the legislative competence to make necessary amendments in the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. Admittedly the legislative competence of the State Legislature is not in dispute. 12. Similarly, it cannot be disputed that the age of superannuation is a condition of service. According to the statutory provisions prior to the Amendment 2000, the age of superannuation of non-teaching employees was 62 years. Further in 2002, the State Legislature substituted the earlier Section 67(a), making the age of superannuation of teaching and non-teaching employees to be 60 years. Thus, Section 67(a) has been completely substituted in 2002 and the age of retirement of non- teaching employees of the University or College was 60 years. Further in 2002, the State Legislature substituted the earlier Section 67(a), making the age of superannuation of teaching and non-teaching employees to be 60 years. Thus, Section 67(a) has been completely substituted in 2002 and the age of retirement of non- teaching employees of the University or College was 60 years. Due to substitution of Section 67(a) in 2002, those non-teaching employees cannot claim that their age of retirement should be allowed to continue at 62 years according to the earlier proviso which is non-est or non- existent from the year 2002. 13. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of N. Lakshmana Rao and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. . The relevant observations made by the Supreme Court therein are as follows: 25. The question of retirement age was considered by this Court in Bishun Narain Mishra v. State of U.P. . The State Government in that case raised the age of superannuation from 55 to 58 years and again reduced the age to 55 years. It was held that there is no provision which takes away power of the Government to increase or reduce the age of superannuation. When the rule only deals with the age of superannuation and the Government servant had to retire because of the reduction in the age of superannuation it cannot be said that the termination of the service amounts to removal within the meaning of Article 311. 26. It, therefore, follows that teachers who exercised the form of option were subject to change in the conditions of service under Rules framed under Article 309. There is no constitutional limitation to reduce the age of retirement. A Government servant enjoys the status of a Government servant. He cannot be removed and his services cannot be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Fixing an age of retirement does not amount to removal or termination. 14. As per the above ratio, there is no constitutional limitation to reduce the age of retirement as there is no provision which takes away the power of the Government to increase or reduce the age of superannuation. The Government servant enjoys the status of the Government servant. Of course, he cannot be removed and his services cannot be terminated, except in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The Government servant enjoys the status of the Government servant. Of course, he cannot be removed and his services cannot be terminated, except in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. But, fixing an age of retirement is well within the power of the State Legislature which has got competence to amend the State Universities Act and such fixation reducing the age of superannuation does not amount to removal or termination of service of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim vested right over the same. 15. According to the Advocate General, the question relating to fixation of the age of superannuation is a policy matter and the same is within the domain of the Government and accordingly, considering all aspects, steps were taken for substitution of Section 67(a). Ultimately the State Legislature, in exercise of their legislative power, have made amendment, by fixing the age of superannuation of non-teaching employees at 60 years. We find force in the contention of the learned Advocate General. Nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that in bringing any substitution in the Legislative Act, the State Legislature is divested of any such power. The State Legislature has the competence to legislate an Act including the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 and also has the competence to amend/substitute any provision in the said Act. 16. Therefore, the point urged by the teamed counsel for the petitioners has no substance and as such, we find that there is no merit in this writ petitions. Hence, they are dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 17. I agree.