Judgment :- “C.R.” Ramachandran Nair, J. The appellants are members of the teaching faculty in the Homeo Medical Colleges in the State. Their grievance is that the retirement age of teachers in the Medial Colleges teaching Modern Medicine (Allopathy) under the Director of Medical Education is increased from 55 to 60 through Ext.P3 order produced in the W.P.(C). Even though the order is challenged on ground of discrimination, relief sought is for equal treatment and for direction to the State to increase the retirement age of teaching staff in the Homeo Medical Colleges also. The learned Single Judge having declined the relief, the appellants have filed this Writ Appeal. We have heard Senior counsel Sri. K.R.B. Kaimal appearing for the appellants and Government Pleader for respondents. 2. Government Pleader defended Ext.P3 stating that there is scarcity of qualified people for appointment as teachers in Modern Medicine in the Medical Colleges and if retirement age is not increased by five years, there will be shortage of teaching staff leading to even de-recognition of Medical Colleges under the control of the Government. The appellants are not able to refute the contention of the respondents. We do not think there is anything wrong in Government extending the retirement age of teachers in Medical Colleges teaching Modern Medicine, if there is dearth for qualified people for appointment as teachers in the lower levels to succeed the retiring people. Retirement age is essentially a matter of policy of the Government and courts normally have no role in fixing the same. Senior counsel for the appellants rightly pointed out that the retirement age of teachers under the UGC Scheme is 65 years and it is against public interest to keep a low retirement age at 55 for members of the teaching faculty because at the retiring age they will be quiet experienced and if longer service is provided to them, the same will be beneficial to the student community. However, this certainly applies not only to the teachers of the Homeo Medical Colleges, but to the entire teaching faculty in colleges and schools, whether it be Engineering College, Medical College, Veterinary College or even Ayurvedic College. However, this certainly applies not only to the teachers of the Homeo Medical Colleges, but to the entire teaching faculty in colleges and schools, whether it be Engineering College, Medical College, Veterinary College or even Ayurvedic College. If appellants' prayer is allowed, then we see no reason why benefit should not be extended to atleast teachers in the professional colleges like Engineering College, Ayurvedic College or even Veterinary College where education imparted is similar to the one rendered in Medical College for teaching Modern Medicine. In view of the valid reason stated by the State to make an exception in the case of teaching staff of Modern Medicine in Government Medical Colleges, we do not find any justification to interfere with the same. Further, since the extension of age limit for teaching staff of the Medical Colleges is a policy decision, it is not open to the High Court to issue any positive direction for increasing the retirement age of teaching staff of the Homeo Medical Colleges also. We, therefore, confirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the Writ Appeal.