Judgment : A.P. Lavande, J. By this petition, the petitioners has sought for the following reliefs: (a) This Honourable Court be pleased to grant an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to grant the benefit of the said amendment to the petitioners and consequently to continue the petitioners in service till the age of 60 years; (b) In the alternative this Honourable Court be pleased to grant an appropriate writ, order and direction to strike down the cut off date of 18.04.2006 i.e. the date on which the said amendment came into force so as to the teachers as that of the petitioners whose date of birth is between 01.04.1948 and 17.04.1948 are also awarded the enhanced age of superannuation of 60 years; (c) In the alternative, this Honourable Court be pleased to expeditiously decide the present petition by fixing a peremptory date; (d) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to: (i) Release the salary of the petitioner no.1 from the month of December, 2006 onwards; (ii) Release the salary of the petitioner no.2 from the month of May, 2006 onwards; (e) Direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in the service pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition; (f) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition this Honourable Court be pleased to:- (i) Release the salary of the petitioner no.1 from the month of December, 2006 onwards; (ii) Release the salary of the petitioner no.1 from the month of May, 2006 onwards. 2. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as teachers by respondent no.3 in respondent no.4 school in the years 1972 and 1977 respectively in terms of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984 and the Rules framed thereunder. The dates of birth of the petitioners are 12.04.1948 and 16.04.1948 respectively and in terms of the provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Education Act, the petitioners would reach age of superannuation on 12.04.2008 and 16.04.2008 respectively. In terms of Rule 88 of the School Education Rules, the petitioners were entitled to be re-employed upto 30.04.2008. 3. Respondent no.1 published the notification dated 19.04.2006 amending Section 11 of the Goa School Education Act, 1984 which reads thus: “2. In terms of Rule 88 of the School Education Rules, the petitioners were entitled to be re-employed upto 30.04.2008. 3. Respondent no.1 published the notification dated 19.04.2006 amending Section 11 of the Goa School Education Act, 1984 which reads thus: “2. Amendment of section 11.- In section 11 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984 (Act 15 of 1985), in sub-section (1A), for the expression “every employee of a recognised private school, aided or not, shall retire at the age of 58 years.”, the expression “a teacher of a recognised private school, whether aided or not, shall retire at the age of 60 years and an employee, other than a teacher, of such school shall retire at the age of 58 years.” shall be substituted.” 4. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of the amendment to Section 11, the petitioners were to retire on 12.04.2006 and 16.04.2006 respectively. The challenge to the amendment of Section 11 is primarily on the ground that the State Government is not entitled to fix a cut off date and the date fixed i.e. 19.04.2006 as arbitrary and illegal and the classification of the school teachers who are to retire prior to 19.04.2006 and from 19.04.2006 is not based on the intelligible differentia. It is the case of the petitioners that the classification is not based upon intelligible differentia and it does not bear nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the amendment. 5. The short question which arises for our consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought in the petition. 6. On a bare perusal of the amendment to section 11 in terms of the notification dated 19.04.2006 discloses that the age of the retirement has been increased from 58 years to 60 years and the same has come into force w.e.f. 19.04.2006. It is the contention of the petitioners that since the petitioners were entitled to continue till 30.04.2006 even if the age of retirement was reduced from 60 years to 58 years and since the petitioners were in service as on 19.04.2006 in terms of Rule 88, the said notification was applicable to them. 7. We find no merit in the submission made by Shri J. Supekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. 7. We find no merit in the submission made by Shri J. Supekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. In terms of the amendment to Section 11, by virtue of the said notification, the date of retirement has been increased from 58 years to 60 years. No doubt, the proviso to Rule 88 provides that where a teacher attains the age of superannuation on or after the first day of November of any year, such teacher shall be re-employed upto 30th day of April of the year immediately following, if the teacher so desires. In our considered opinion, the proviso to Rule 88 does not advance the case of the petitioners inasmuch as the proviso does not confer any right on the petitioners to continue till 30.04.2006 in case they were to retire on or after the first day of November of the previous year but their continuation after the attaining the age of superannuation is by way of re-employment and as such, the benefit of notification dated 19.04.2006 is not applicable to the petitioners. In the present case, there is no serious dispute that the petitioners have attained the age of 58 years as on 12.04.2006 and 16.04.2006 and they would have continued upto 30.04.2006 in terms of proviso to Rule 88 by way of reemployment and not a matter of right. Therefore, in our considered opinion, Rule 88 does not come to the rescue of the petitioners. 8. In so far as the submission of Shri J. Supekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the fixing of a cut off date by respondent no.1 is patently arbitrary and illegal is concerned, we find absolutely no merit inasmuch as on bare perusal of the notification discloses that respondent no.1 has not fixed any cut off date. The notification has been published on 19.04.2006 and in terms of the amendment to section 11, it deemed to come into force from the said date and as such, the question of fixing of a cut off date by respondent no.1 does not arise. Consequently, the argument based on fixing of a cut off date by respondent no.1 is without any basis. 9. In the result, therefore, we do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly with no order as to costs.