Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against the respondents to permit her to continue in service up to the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits. ( 2. ) THE facts in brief are these. The petitioner was appointed on 25. 11. 1970 as Upper Division Teacher in the Tribal Department of the State Government. On 7. 12. 1982 she was sent on deputation to another department of Woman and Child Development as Child development Project Officer (CDPO) under Integrated Child development Scheme (ICDS ). The petitioner was then promoted in her parent department on 21. 9. 1984 to the post of Lecturer. Later, her services were absorbed in the department of Woman and Child development on 24. 12. 1997 as Assistant Child Development Project officer where the age of retirement is 60 years. On her absorption in the Department of Woman and Child Development she lost her lien in the parent department where she was working as teacher. On 31. 8. 1998 the State Government issued a circular by which retirement age of Government teacher was enhanced from 60 to 62 years. Thereafter, the State Government also amended Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules by Madhya Pradesh Act No. 27/1998 with effect from 7. 8. 1998 and enhanced the retirement age of every government teacher to 62 years. The petitioner was retired on attaining the age of 60 years according to rules of service applicable to the services in which she had been absorbed and working. Aggrieved by her retirement she has filed the present petition. According to the petitioner, since her lien was retained on the post of teacher in the parent department for more than 20 years, she falls within the meaning of teacher as explained in Rule 56 and, therefore, the respondents cannot retire her before she attains the age of 62 years. ( 3. ) THE respondents, who are officers of Woman and Child development Department, have denied in their return that the petitioner comes within the definition of teacher contained in the explanation to Rule 56. They have also stated that petitioner has no right to continue in service beyond 60 years of age. ( 4. ) TO resolve the controversy, I deem it proper to reproduce the relevant extract of amended Fundamental Rule 56: 56. They have also stated that petitioner has no right to continue in service beyond 60 years of age. ( 4. ) TO resolve the controversy, I deem it proper to reproduce the relevant extract of amended Fundamental Rule 56: 56. Age of superannuation (1-a) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), every Government Teacher shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty two years: provided that a Government teacher whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty two years. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-rule "teacher" means a Government servant by whatever designation called, appointed for the purpose of teaching in Government educational Institution including technical or medical educational institutions, in accordance with the recruitment rules applicable to such appointment and shall also include the teacher who is appointed to an administrative post by promotion or otherwise and who has been engaged in teaching for not less than twenty years provided he holds a lien on a post in the concerned school/collegiate/technical/medical education service. ( 5. ) A bare reading of the above quoted rule, particularly the explanation, clearly indicates that two conditions are essential for a government servant to come within the definition of teacher contained in the explanation to Rule 56. First, he must be engaged in teaching for not less than 20 years and second, he must hold a lien on a post in the education service at the time when the question of retirement arises for consideration or in other words the question regarding the proper age of superannuation comes for application. In the present case none of these conditions are fulfilled. As already stated above, the petitioner was appointed as Upper Division teacher on 25. 11. 1970 and she was sent on deputation as Child development Project Officer on 7. 12. 1982. After 7. 12. 1982 the petitioner has never been engaged in teaching. She was thus engaged in teaching for only 12 years. Further petitioners services were absorbed in the borrowing department on 24. 12. 1997 and she was retired on completing the age of 60 years on 31. 10. 2008, i. e. much after she had lost her lien in the education service. 1982 the petitioner has never been engaged in teaching. She was thus engaged in teaching for only 12 years. Further petitioners services were absorbed in the borrowing department on 24. 12. 1997 and she was retired on completing the age of 60 years on 31. 10. 2008, i. e. much after she had lost her lien in the education service. Accordingly, it is not possible to hold that petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the age of retirement of 62 years as permitted by fundamental Rule 56 for teacher. ( 6. ) THE petition fails and is dismissed. No orders as to costs.