Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 472 (AP)

Professor D. R. Raju v. Union of India

2011-06-28

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

body2011
Judgment : 1. The petitioners are the Professors in various faculties in Sri Potti Sri Ramulu Telugu university and Andhra University Colleges, particulars of faculties in which the petitioners are working are not required to be elaborated. They filed the writ petition seeking mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not implementing the policy of the Central Government in its entirety as enunciated in orders, dated 31.12.2008, which is incorporated in the U.G.C. Regulations, dated 30.6.2010, (hereafter referred to as ‘the UGC Regulations, 2010’) so far as the extension of the age of superannuation of the petitioners from 60 years to 65 years as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory. They moved the instant application seeking the following interim relief: ‘For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying to the writ petition, the petitioners pray that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to retain and continue the petitioners in service of the 4th and 5th respondent Universities till their attaining age of 65 years without reference in G.O. Ms. No.14, dated 20.2.2010 and G.O. Rt.No.327, dated 21.5.2011, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.’ In G.O. Ms.No.14, Higher Education (UE-II) Department, dated 22.2.2010, the State Government extended the revised UGC scale of pay to the teaching staff in universities and colleges w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The pay scale allowed to the teaching staff in Universities and colleges is titled as the Andhra Pradesh Revised UGC Scales of Pay, 2006. The Government under G.O. Rt.No.327, Higher Education (UEII) Department dated 21.5.2011 constituted a committee to examine the issue in detail as to enhancement of age of superannuation to 65 years to the teachers in Universities/Government/Aided Degree Colleges based on the recommendations of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi/University Grants Commission. The report of the committee is awaited. The basis for filing the writ petition is the Regulations titled the writ petition is the Regulations titled as the, University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010. There is annexure to these Regulations, Para 2.00 of the annexure deals with Pay Scales, pay fixation formula and age of superannuation, etc. There is annexure to these Regulations, Para 2.00 of the annexure deals with Pay Scales, pay fixation formula and age of superannuation, etc. It is the plea of the petitioners that the State Government-2nd respondent issued G.O. Ms. No.14, Higher Education (UE-II) Department, dated 20.2.2010, implementing the UGC Revised Pay Scales, 2006 to the Teaching staff in Universities and Colleges with effect from 1.1.2006 and therefore, it is deemed that the UGC Regulations, 2010, have been accepted, in which case, the age of superannuation of the teachers working in University Colleges is required to be enhanced from 60 years to 65 years. 2. Heard Sri. S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the 2nd respondents; Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for U.G.C. appearing for the 3rd respondent and Sri. M.V. Raja Ram, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra University appearing for the 5th respondent. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though a Division Bench of this Court in WP No.12726 of 2010 and Batch dated 20.1.2011 (Prof. B. Surya Prakash Rao and others v. Union of India, Ministry of HRD and others) dealt the issue basing on Central Government Notifications, the UGC Regulations, 2010, have not been referred in the said decision. Since, the UGC Regulations, 2010, have been framed by the UGC in exercise of powers under clauses (c) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the said Regulations have a statutory force, in which case, the State Government and the Universities are bound to follow the service conditions as to ‘age of superannuation enunciated in Annexure to the Regulations. Incidentally, learned Senior Counsel refers Entry-66 of List-I and Entry 25 of List-III. In short, the main say of the argument is the university education which is higher education and shall be covered by entry 66 of List I, and therefore, the regulations made by the UGC are binding an against the State Government and the Universities. No further scope is left for the option of the State Legislatures is the said field which is fully governed by the UGC pursuant to the powers conferred on it under Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. No further scope is left for the option of the State Legislatures is the said field which is fully governed by the UGC pursuant to the powers conferred on it under Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Learned Senior Counsel also took me to the Circular letter dated 31.12.2008 emanating from Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of India, whereunder, communication has been sent to the Secretary, University Grants Commission, conveying acceptance of the recommendations. The directions of the Government of India have been culminated in issuance of UGC Regulations, 2010. It is strenuously contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the UGC Regulations, 2010 have a statutory force and they are bound to be implemented by the State Government as well as the Universities, in which case, age of superannuation of the petitioners is to be treated as 65 years. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on a Division bench judgment of this Court in Osmania University Teachers Association (OUTA) v. Union of India, 2002 (4) ALT 682 (DB). He also placed reliance on the judgments of various High Courts, such as High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, in WP(S) No.363 of 2010 etc; High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No.11348 of 2010; and High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The copies of the said judgments have been placed on record. Learned Senior Counsel laid much emphasis on the following para, in the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, in WP(S) No.363 of 2010 etc.: ‘The interplay of Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III was again examined by a Constitution Bench in a case of Preeti Srivastavs (Dr.) vs. State of M.P 1999) (5) ALD 34 (SC) (FB) = (1999) 7 SCC 120 , in the context of lowering of standard by the State for admission to a post graduate course in a medical college and it was held that the State cannot while controlling education in the State impinge on standards in institutions for higher education, because this is exclusively within the purview of the Union Government. While considering the question whether norms for admission have any connection with the standard of education and that they are only covered by Entry 25 of List III, it was observed that any lowering of the norms for admission does have an adverse effect on the standard of education in the institution of higher education. The standard of education in institution depend on various factors like (i) caliber of teaching staff (ii) proper syllabus design to achieve high level of education in a given span of time (iii) 1 student - teacher ratio (iv) equipment and laboratory facilities (v) caliber of student admitted (vi) adequate accommodation in the institution (vii) standard of examination held including the manner in which paper are set and examined and evaluation of the practical examination done. It was pointed out that education involves a continuous interaction between the teachers and the students. The base of teaching, the level to which teaching can rise and the benefit which the students ultimately receive depend as much on caliber of the students as on the caliber of the teachers and the availability of the adequate infrastructural facilities. Apart from the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Srivastavs (Dr.) vs. State of M.P (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court again in a case of Prof. Yashpal and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (2005) 5 SCC 420, has observed : ‘The consistent and settled view of this Court, therefore, is that in spite of incorporation of universities as a legislative head being in the State List the whole gamut of the University, which will include teaching quality of education being imparted, curriculum, standard of examination and evaluation and also research activity being carried on, will not come within the purview of the State Legislature on account of a specific entry on coordination and determination of standard in institution for higher education or research and scientific and technical education being in the Union List for which Parliament alone is competent. It is the responsibility of the Parliament to ensure that proper standard are maintained in institution for higher education or research through out the country and also uniformity in standard is maintained’. It is the responsibility of the Parliament to ensure that proper standard are maintained in institution for higher education or research through out the country and also uniformity in standard is maintained’. Once the proposition as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two decisions, there would be hardly any substance in the objection raised on behalf of the State and the Universities that any legislation with respect to enhancement of age of the teachers from 62 to 65 years would be beyond the competence of the Central Government to make any legislation under Entry 66 of List I as the age seems to have been enhanced to attract eligible person to have teaching career and thereby the students would be getting more experienced teachers which would certainly raise the standard of teaching which proposition can fairly and reasonably be comprehended. At this stage, I may refer to a case of Check Post Officer vs. K.P. Abdulla and Bros, (1970) 3 SCC 355 , wherein it has been held that entry confers power upon the legislature to legislate for matters ancillary or incidental, including provision for avoiding the law. As long as the legislation is within the permissible field in pith and substance, objection would not be entertained merely on the ground that while enacting legislation, provision has been made for a matter which though germane for the purpose for which competent legislation is made it covers an area beyond. Thus, in view of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to above, stipulation made under the regulation regarding enhancement of the age from 62 to 65 years cannot be said to be an encroachment of the field of the State Legislature. That being the situation, age of superannuation prescribed under Section 67 of the Jharkhand University Act framed under Entry 25 of List III of the Constitution of India being in conflict with the regulation so far it relates enhancement of the age from 62 to 65 would be void and inoperative in terms of Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, order as contained in Memo No.1188 dated 20.11.2010 refusing to extend the age from 62 to 65 is hereby set aside. Accordingly, order as contained in Memo No.1188 dated 20.11.2010 refusing to extend the age from 62 to 65 is hereby set aside. Thus, in view of the conclusion arrived at just hereinabove and also conclusion that scheme formulated by way of regulation is to be adopted a composite one, the age of superannuation of the petitioners would stand extended to 65 years. As a consequence whereof the petitioners who was in service but was made to retire on 30.6.2010 or thereafter on attaining the age of 62 years would be entitled to the benefit of extended age of superannuation as a result of which they are to be taken back in service with continuity and all consequential benefits. Thus, all these writ applications are allowed.’ Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the following passage in the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, in CWJC No.11348 of 2010: ‘As noticed above, the fact situation has undergone materials change since the decision of the Division Bench in the case of State of Bihar -v- Professor (Dr.) Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra).As noticed above, in that case itself it was held that there was no formalized Regulation of UGC. That deficiency has since been cured and as referred to above the formal UGC Regulation, 2010 has been issued on 30th of June, 2010. The Division Bench had held that the letter of the Central Government dated 31.12.2008 was not made applicable to the State universities by a formalized Regulation of UGC. That stands fully cured by UGC making that letter of the Central Government dated 31.12.2008 as an integral part of the Regulation being Appendix 1 to the Regulation and as per the terms of the Central Government letter dated 11.5.2010, the Central Government letter dated 31.12.2008 has been specifically made applicable to the State Government with a specific direction to implement the scheme as a composite one including the age of superannuation as mentioned in para 8(f) of the Central Government letter dated 31.12.2008. Thus, seen there is now a formalized decision in the shape of UGC Regulation with regard to enhancement of age of superannuation of University Teachers to 65 years. In my view, one must consider the provisions of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956, and in particular the definition of ‘University’ as given in Section 2(f) therein. Thus, seen there is now a formalized decision in the shape of UGC Regulation with regard to enhancement of age of superannuation of University Teachers to 65 years. In my view, one must consider the provisions of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956, and in particular the definition of ‘University’ as given in Section 2(f) therein. University would include all Universities established under Central Act, Provincial Act or the State Act. Then reference may be made to Section 12 of the University Grants Commission Act, which defined the function of the Commission, which makes it clear that general duty of the Commission is to take all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion, coordination of University Education and for determination and maintenance of standard of teaching etc. Then we may refer to Section 20 of the UGC Act, which obliges the Commission to abide by the direction on question of policy given to it by the Central Government. These clearly establish that the Central Government has plenary power to lay down policy for the Commission and the Commission has the function to implement the policy apart from formulating steps in relation thereto. As seen from the facts, noted above, the Central Government issued direction vide its letter dated 11.5.2010 that its policy contained in letter 31.12.2008 would now apply to all Universities in the country and this was formalized by the Regulation of UGC dated 30th of June, 2010. Material part of letter dated 11.5.2010 has been quoted above and in particular para 4 thereof. Now, we come to the material portion of Section 67(a) of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976, which, as stated above, is the same as Section 64(a) of the Patna University Act, 1976, which is quoted hereunder: ‘...... Material part of letter dated 11.5.2010 has been quoted above and in particular para 4 thereof. Now, we come to the material portion of Section 67(a) of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976, which, as stated above, is the same as Section 64(a) of the Patna University Act, 1976, which is quoted hereunder: ‘...... the age of retirement of teaching employees will the same which would be decided by the University Grants Commission in future.’ In my view, now, by operation of Section 67(a) of the Bihar Universities Act and for that matter Section 64(a) of the Patna University Act, once such a formalized decision of UGC has taken place, the age of university teachers or the teaching employees of the University would automatically by operation of law get extended to 65 years and no formalized decision of the State Government was required in this regard as has also been noted by the Division Bench in para 42 of its judgment quote above.’ 4. It is brought to my notice that the judgment of learned Single Judge in the above-referred case has been challenged before the Division Bench of the same Court in intra-Court appeal and the division bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and thereupon, the aggrieved party approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) No(s).18766-18782/2010 and secured ‘an order of status quo. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the prescription of age of superannuation falls under the contours of co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions of higher education or research and scientific and technical, institutions enumerated in Entry 66 of List I. In view of the (UGC Regulations, 2010 increasing the age of superannuation to the central Government funded universities, the same is applicable to the teachers in State universities. Learned Senior Counsel submits that there are number of vacancies in the cadre of Professors, Readers in the Universities and therefore, their continuation will in no way prejudice the claim of any person. Learned Senior Counsel refers Page No.60 of the material papers in support of his submissions with regard to the number of vacancies available in University. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Senior Counsel on the communication dated 11.5.2010 emanating from the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education. Learned Senior Counsel refers Page No.60 of the material papers in support of his submissions with regard to the number of vacancies available in University. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Senior Counsel on the communication dated 11.5.2010 emanating from the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education. The paragraphs on which much emphasis has been laid in the above-referred communication is as hereunder: ‘Thus as per the terms and conditions of the Ministry’s letter dated 31.12.2008, the State Government are required to implement the scheme as a composite one, including the age of superannuation (mentioned in para 8(f) of this Ministry’s letter dated 31.12.2008), together with all the conditions specified or to be specified by University Grants Commission (UGC) by regulations and other guidelines. Learned Senior Counsel took me extensively to the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in Osmania University Teachers Association’s case (supra), laying much emphasis on Para 60 of the judgment, which reads as hereunder: ‘60. The said judgment, in all its force, would apply to the case on hand. The regulations framed by the UGC are complete and exhaustive covering the entire field relating to the qualifications, eligibility criteria and procedure to be adopted by the University and the manner in which the Selection Committees are to be constituted for selection of teachers. No further scope is left for the operation of the State Legislation in the said field, which is fully covered by the regulations framed by the UGC pursuant to the power conferred upon it under Section 26 read with Section 14 of the UGC Act.’ Learned Senior Counsel would also contend that any observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Prof. B. Surya Prakash Rao and others v. Union of India, Ministry of HRD, rep by its Secretary and others (supra), cannot be made applicable to the present case of the petitioners since, the Regulations, 2010 were not the subject-matter in that case. A further contention has been advanced that certain observations made in B. Bharat Kumar v. Osmania university, (2007) 11 SC 58 and T.P. George v. State of Kerala, 1992 SCC (Supp) (3) 191, cannot be considered as binding precedent, since they were made prior to Regulations, 2010. A further contention has been advanced that certain observations made in B. Bharat Kumar v. Osmania university, (2007) 11 SC 58 and T.P. George v. State of Kerala, 1992 SCC (Supp) (3) 191, cannot be considered as binding precedent, since they were made prior to Regulations, 2010. Only the ratio decidendi can act or binding and reliance placed on mere general observations or usual expressions of the Court is not of much avail. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government Information & Tourism Dept., (2009) 4 SCC 590 . 5. Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University Grants Commission/respondent No.3 submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Prof. B. Surya Prakash Rao v. Union of India, Ministry of HRD (supra) and therefore, the teachers in the State University cannot claim enhancement of superannuation to 65 years unless and until the State Government issues G.O. enhancing the age of superannuation to 65 years. He also contends that the UGC Regulations 2010 are applicable to Central Universities and so far as the applicability of the enhancement of age of superannuation to 65 years, it is left open to the State Governments to take appropriate decision. Learned Counsel refers Para 2.3.1. He also contends that the UGC Regulations 2010 are applicable to Central Universities and so far as the applicability of the enhancement of age of superannuation to 65 years, it is left open to the State Governments to take appropriate decision. Learned Counsel refers Para 2.3.1. of UGC Regulations of Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education 2010, Para 2.3.1 reads as hereunder: ‘The revised scales of pay and age of superannuation as provided in clause 2.1.0 above may also be extended to Universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislature and maintained by the State Governments, subject to the implementation of the scheme as a composite one in adherence of the terms and conditions laid down in the MHRD notifications provided as Appendix I and in the MHRD Letter No.F.1-7/2010-U Ii dated 11th May 2010 with all conditions specified by the UGC in these Regulations and other Guidelines.’ In support of his submissions, learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in B. Bharat Kumar v. Osmania University (supra), wherein it has been held that as long as the State Government has not accepted UGC’s recommendations to fix the age of superannuation at 60 years (as it then was), teachers cannot claim as a matter of right that they were entitled to retire on attaining the age of 60 years (as it then was). Much emphasis has been laid on Para (15) of the cited judgment, which reads as hereunder: ‘15. Once we take this view on the plain reading of the scheme, it would be necessary for us to take stock of the subsequent arguments of Mr. Rao regarding Entry 66 in the List I vis-à-vis Entry 25 in List III. In our opinion, the communications even if they could be heightened to the pedestal of a legislation or as the case may be, a policy decision under Article 73 of the Constitution, they would have to be read as they appear and a plain reading is good enough to show that the Central Government or as the case may be UGC also did not introduce the element of compulsion vis-à-vis the State Government and the Universities. We, therefore, do not find any justification in going to the Entries and in examining as to whether the scheme was binding, particularly when the specific words of the scheme did not suggest it to be binding and specifically suggest it to be voluntary.’ The Supreme Court also negatived the contention of the teachers that prescription of the age superannuation falls under the contours of co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions of higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions enumerated in Entry 66 of List I. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that granting any interim relief to the petitioners virtually amounts to allowing the writ petition and therefore, the WPMP filed by them is liable to be dismissed. In all other aspects, learned Additional Advocate General adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 7. As seen from the material placed on record, teachers in State Universities and affiliated colleges to the State Universities have been approaching this Court repeatedly claiming parity with the teachers in Central Universities in respect of age of superannuation. This Court rejected their contention in B. Bharat Kumar’s case (supra) and Prof. B. Surya Prakash Rao’s case (supra). This is third time the same issue has been raised by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners asserts that they are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 65 years in view of UGC Regulations, 2010. Almost all the communications and letters relating to implementation of UGC Scales of pay, 2006 have been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Prof. B. Surya Prakash Rao’s case (supra). 8. The only one aspect which was not considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Prof. B. Surya Prakash Rao’s case (supra), is Regulations, 2010. The question is whether there is any change of position of the teachers working in State Universities/affiliated colleges to the State Universities after issuance of Regulations, 2010 by the University Grants Commission in exercise of powers under clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. The question is whether there is any change of position of the teachers working in State Universities/affiliated colleges to the State Universities after issuance of Regulations, 2010 by the University Grants Commission in exercise of powers under clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. It is the contention of the petitioners that in view of the UGC Regulations, 2010, it has become mandatory for the State Governments/State Universities to enhance the age of superannuation to 65 years. 9. At the cost of repetition, I may state that the Supreme Court in T.P. George v. State of Kerala (supra), has observed that as long as the State Government has not accepted the UGC’s recommendation to fix the age of superannuation at 60 years (as it then was), teachers cannot claim as a matter of right that they are entitled to retire on attaining the age of 60 years (as it then was). This proposition of law has been quoted with approval in Bharat Kumar’s case (supra). A Division Bench of this Court in B. Suyra Prakash Rao’s case (supra), relying on the above two decisions, rejected the contention of the teachers that they are also entitled for enhancement of the age of superannuation to 65 years in par with the teachers working in-Central Universities. 10. The State government issued G.O. Ms. No.14, Higher Education (UE-II) Department, dated 20.2.2010 granting UGC Revised Pay Scales, 2006 to the teaching staff in Universities and Colleges. The pay scales allowed to the teaching staff in universities and colleges is titled as ‘Andhra Pradesh Revised UGC Scales of Pay, 2006. After the issuance of the G.O. the University Grants Commission notified the Regulations, 2010 and the said regulations came to be published in the Gazette on September, 18, 2010 (Bhadra 27, 1932). The Regulations, 2010 are dated 30.6.2010. The Regulations has an annexure. It is in respect of UGC Regulations on minimum qualification for appointment of Teachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2010. Para (2) deals with pay scales, pay fixation formula and age of superannuation etc. The said para, reads as hereunder: ‘2.0.0. Pay Scales, Pay Fixation Formula and Age of Superannuation, etc. 2.1.0. Para (2) deals with pay scales, pay fixation formula and age of superannuation etc. The said para, reads as hereunder: ‘2.0.0. Pay Scales, Pay Fixation Formula and Age of Superannuation, etc. 2.1.0. The revised scales of pay and other service conditions including age of superannuation in central universities and other institutions maintained and/or funded by the University Grants Commission (UGC), shall be strictly in accordance with the decision of the Central Government, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), as contained in Appendix-I. 2.2.0. The pay scale shall, in the central universities and other institutions maintained and/or funded by the UGC, be fixed in accordance with the pay ‘fixation formula’ developed by the UGC and approved by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), as contained in Appendix-II. 2.3.0. The pay fixation formula for teachers shall apply for other positions in the Library and Physical Education and Sports cadres in the Central Universities and Colleges thereunder and Institutions Deemed to be Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC. 2.3.1. The revised scales of pay and age of superannuation as provided in Clause 2.1.0 above, may also be extended to Universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislature and maintained by the State Governments, subject to the implementation of the scheme as a composite one in adherence of the terms and conditions laid down in the MHRD notifications provided as Appendix I and in the MHRD letter No.F.1-7/2010-U II dated 11 May, 2010 with all conditions specified by the UGC in these Regulations and other Guidelines. 2.3.2. Subject to the availability of vacant positions and fitness, teachers such as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor only, may be re-employed on contract appointment beyond the age of superannuation, as applicable to the concerned University, college and Institution, up to the age of seventy years. Provided further that all such re-employment shall be strictly in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the UGC, from time to time. 2.3.3. All other aspects which are not covered in these Regulations, on applicability, financial assistance, date of implementation of revised pay and allowances and payment of arrears, etc. Provided further that all such re-employment shall be strictly in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the UGC, from time to time. 2.3.3. All other aspects which are not covered in these Regulations, on applicability, financial assistance, date of implementation of revised pay and allowances and payment of arrears, etc. shall be as laid down in the MHRD Notifications provided as Appendix-I of these Regulations and the MHRD letter No.F.1-7/2010-U II dated 11 May, 2010.’ The above-referred paragraph indicates that there is discretion vested with the State Government with regard to the applicability of the revised scales of pay and other service conditions. The State Government considered the UGC Scales of Pay, 2006 and issued G.O. Ms. No.14, Higher Education (UE.II) Department, dated 20.2.2010. A reading of the Regulations indicates that the position of the teachers working in State Universities or affiliated colleges is no way better footing than that of their position prior to issuance of Regulations, 2010. The Supreme Court in Bharat Kumar’s case (supra), has categorically held that even if it is a composite scheme, discretion vests with the State Government to implement the scheme in toto or part of it. In view of the settled proposition of law, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that it is mandatory on the part of the State Government to implement the scheme as annexed to the Regulations, 2010 in toto cannot be sustained. 11. A writ of mandamus is a preemptory order of the Court commanding somebody to do that which he is under a clear legal duty to do. In order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of mandamus, the petitioner must satisfy the following conditions: (1) The petitioner must show that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty (as distinguished from a discretion) by the party against whom the mandamus in sought, and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition. (2) The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution, a statue, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law.’ So long as the State Government issues G.O. enhancing the age of superannuation to 65 years, the petitioners have no right to seek mandamus to the Government to continue them in service till they attain the age of 65 years. In view of the above discussion, I find that the petitioners have failed to make out a prima facie case for granting the interim relief. This order does not preclude the State Government to reemploy the petitioners on contract basis till they attain the age of 65 years, wherever there services are required. 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks direction to the Government to expedite the process initiated to consider the issue of enhancement of age of superannuation to 65 years to the University/College teachers in the State. In that view of the matter, the 2nd respondent is directed to complete the process in considering the issue as to enhancement of the age of superannuation to 65 years, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks. 13. Accordingly, the WPMP is dismissed. No costs.