JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The singular issue posed for our consideration herein relates to the retirement age of teaching personnel engaged by the Aadarsha Sanskrit Mahavidyalayas/Adarsha Shodha Sanstans, which are institutions financially supported by the Government of India for supporting traditional institutions of Sanskrit learning. 2. We notice from the papers on file that the policy of the Government of India, with respect to the financial support to this institution, has been renewed from time to time and that after the year 1993, it was reviewed in the year 2012 and that a revised scheme for such financial assistance was published. A copy of this revised scheme is available as Ext.P18 on the files of W.P.(C) No.12786/2011, from which Writ Appeal No.993/2018 arises. 3. The most constitutive facts involved in these cases are that the 1st respondents in both these appeals, namely Dr.V.Sathiavathy and Dr.K.K.Sarala, were initially appointed as Assistant Professors in Hindi and Vedantha respectively and that they have been continuing in service in such capacity. As per the revised scheme of financial assistance, it is specifically provided with respect to the service conditions of the incumbents in service as under: “44. All persons employed on teaching as well as non-teaching posts in the institutions receiving financial assistance under this scheme shall be the employees of that particular institution and not of the Government of India/Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan. Merely that they are supported substantially by the Rashtriya Sankrit Sansthan, they would not for any purpose be compared with the employees of the Government of India or the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan under any circumstances. 45. All the new teacher and non teaching staff of the ASM/ASS will be recruited following the procedure laid down and through the Selection Committee prescribed by the prevalent UGC regulations on the subject. They will have to essentially possess qualifications prescribed by the UGC. The eligibility and suitability of all the existing teaching/non teaching staff will be examined in the light of the UGC scale with the approval with the approval of the RSKS. Their subsequent promotion will depend on their being found suitable under the UGC Regulations. Those existing employees, who are not eligible as per the existing UGC Regulations will continue to get the existing pay admissible under the old scheme.” 4. Their subsequent promotion will depend on their being found suitable under the UGC Regulations. Those existing employees, who are not eligible as per the existing UGC Regulations will continue to get the existing pay admissible under the old scheme.” 4. Coming to the question of retirement, the scheme postulates as under: “The age of retirement of teaching staff in Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and Academic staff in Adarsh Shodha Sansthan appointed following the UGC guideline and enjoying UGC Scale of pay will be (as prescribed by the U.G.C.). Those who do not fulfil the UGC qualification will retire as per provisions of the previous scheme. The age of the retirement of non-teaching staff will be as per UGC norms.” 5. The above extracted provisions of the scheme are the most essential for the resolution of the issues raised in these appeals. As is clear from the Clause 62 of Ext.P18 extracted above, the age of retirement of teaching staff will be as per the UGC norms, provided they are qualified as per the applicable UGC Regulations. 6. The primary question, therefore, arose so as to whether these teachers, namely Dr.Sathiavathy and Dr.Sarala, are qualified as per the UGC Regulations to hold the post of Assistant Professor. We notice from the judgment impugned before us that the learned Single Judge had made a very exhaustive consideration of this issue and has recorded the reasons that prevailed upon him to hold that they are so qualified, as is available in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the said judgment, which are extracted below for easy reference. “9. The UGC Regulations made some distinction between direct recruitment and the teaching staff already in service. In the light of the scheme formulated by Sansthan as adverted above, the UGC Regulations would apply to existing teaching staff as well as non-teaching staffs. In the matter of Dr.Sarala and Dr.Sathiavathy, the Screening Committee referred to recruitment qualification to hold that they are not eligible for up-gradation. The direct recruitment regulation as such cannot have an application in the matter of Dr.Sarala and Dr.Sathiavathy. The UGC, in fact, had given exemption to the existing teachers from acquiring NET qualification as per the notification dated 31.7.2002. Dr.Sarala acquired Ph.D. on 29.4.1995. Dr.Sarala was initially appointed as Post-graduate Teacher(Sanskrit) in the year 1993. She was appointed as Lecturer only in the year 2006. The UGC, in fact, had given exemption to the existing teachers from acquiring NET qualification as per the notification dated 31.7.2002. Dr.Sarala acquired Ph.D. on 29.4.1995. Dr.Sarala was initially appointed as Post-graduate Teacher(Sanskrit) in the year 1993. She was appointed as Lecturer only in the year 2006. This appointment was pursuant to a notification. UGC Regulations 2000 governing minimum qualifications for appointment as lecturers provides as follows: “NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph.D. degree. However, the candidate who have completed M.Phil. degree or have submitted, Ph.D. thesis in the concerned subject up to 31st December, 1993, are exempted from appearing in the NET examination.” 10. This was amended in the year 2002. The amendment was produced as Ext.P23 in W.P.(C) No.12786/2011 provides as follows: “NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph.D. degree. However, the candidate who have completed M.Phil degree by 31st December, 1993 or have submitted Ph.D. thesis to the university in the concerned subject on or before 31st December, 2002 are exempted from appearing in the NET examination. In case such candidates fail to obtain Ph.D. Degree, they shall have to pass the NET examination.” 11. Clause 3.3.1 of the UGC Regulations 2010, produced as Ext.P24 in W.P.(C) No.12786/2011 is as follows: “NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. Provided however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission(Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.” 12. It is to be noted that in Clause 6.4.0. of the UGC Regulations 2010 provides stages of promotion under career advancement scheme of incumbent and newly appointed assistant professors/associate professors/professors. Dr.Sarala was appointed as Assistant Professor on 21.7.2006. She acquired Ph.D. in the year 1995. Therefore, her claim for up-gradation shall be considered in terms of Clause 6.4.0 of the UGC Regulations 2010. She will be entitled to all monetary benefits in terms of the Scheme. This shall be considered within two months.” 7. Dr.Sarala was appointed as Assistant Professor on 21.7.2006. She acquired Ph.D. in the year 1995. Therefore, her claim for up-gradation shall be considered in terms of Clause 6.4.0 of the UGC Regulations 2010. She will be entitled to all monetary benefits in terms of the Scheme. This shall be considered within two months.” 7. The finding of the learned Single Judge being that these two teachers are fully qualified under the applicable UGC Regulations, the appellants would have been justified in contesting it only if they have raised a specific legal ground against it in any of these appeals. Pertinently, even on a very close scrutiny of the averments and assertions in the writ appeals, we find not even a whisper against these findings in law of the learned Single Judge and, therefore, we would be justified in accepting that these two teachers are qualified under the UGC Regulations. When we say this, we are not oblivious to one ground raised in the appeal relating to Dr. Sarala that she has been found unqualified as per the UGC regulations by the scrutiny committee. However, it is luculent from the judgment impugned before us and in particular the conclusions of the learned Single Judge extracted above, that the views of the scrutiny committee are contrary to the UGC Regulations and therefore, cannot obtain legal sanctity. In the absence of any contention against the findings of the learned Single Judge with respect to the finding that these two teachers are qualified under the UGC Regulations, we do not deem it necessary to continue with any assessment of the same and to take it that the conclusions of the learned Single Judge, that these two teachers are UGC qualified, remain unchallenged. 8. The sole surviving issue is whether, going by the terms of the revised norms, namely, Ext.P18 in W.A.No.993/2018, these two teachers would obtain the benefit of being allowed to continue in service till the age of 65 years, as per the UGC norms. 8. The sole surviving issue is whether, going by the terms of the revised norms, namely, Ext.P18 in W.A.No.993/2018, these two teachers would obtain the benefit of being allowed to continue in service till the age of 65 years, as per the UGC norms. The contention of the appellants, who are the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, which is an autonomous University and the Vice Chancellor of the said University, are that even if the teachers are found to be UGC qualified, in view of the findings in the report of the scrutiny committee and in view of the fact that the staff pattern with respect to the institution do not support the post of Associate Professor, atleast in the case of Dr.Sathiavathy, the directions in the impugned judgment, that they should be allowed to continue till the age of 65 as Associate Professor, would amount to be in excess of jurisdiction. Certain other grounds are also taken in the appeal which are more or less corollary to this broad contention, with which we deal with in the following paragraphs of this judgment. 9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both these appeals, Sri.N.M.Madhu; Sri. Elvin Peter appearing for the 1st respondents in both these appeals and the learned Central Government Counsel, Smt.O.M.Shalina. 10. Sri.N.M.Madhu, the learned counsel for the appellants opened his submissions by saying that in the case of Dr.Sathiavathy, even if she is found to be UGC qualified, she would not obtain the benefit of extended retirement age as Associate Professor, because the staff pattern applicable to the institution does not provide for the post of an Associate Professor in Hindi. According to him, as is clear from Ext.P8 appended to the papers of Writ Appeal No.401/2018, the institution has a post of Assistant Professors in Hindi, while it has not been sanctioned Associate Professors in the said subject. His submission, thus is that Dr.Sathiavathy cannot be, therefore, be an Associate Professor and that she should be construed to be only an Assistant Professor. 11. Even though we have heard Sri.N.M.Madhu on these lines, we failed to understand the real import of the submission. This is because whether Dr.Sathiavathy is an Assistant Professor or an Associate Professor, it would not matter when her age of retirement is to be reckoned. 11. Even though we have heard Sri.N.M.Madhu on these lines, we failed to understand the real import of the submission. This is because whether Dr.Sathiavathy is an Assistant Professor or an Associate Professor, it would not matter when her age of retirement is to be reckoned. As per the revised scheme that is applicable to the institution, all teachers are to retire as per the UGC norms, provided they are qualified under the UGC Regulations. Obviously, therefore, whether Dr.Sathiavathy is an Assistant Professor or an Associate Professor would be of no relevance at all and even if Sri. N.M.Madhu's argument, that she cannot be reckoned to be an Associate Professor, is taken by us as being true, that would have no impact on the real issues in this case, since whatever be her designation, as long as she is a teaching staff, retirement would be as per the revised norms and nothing else. Therefore, the question again swings to whether she is qualified under the UGC Regulations, notwithstanding whether she is an Associate Professor or an Assistant Professor. As we have already indicated above, since there is no real contest against the findings of the learned Single Judge that Dr.Sathiavathy is qualified under the UGC Regulations, it will only be justified for this Court to hold that the provisions of the revised scheme would be applicable to her and, in particular, the provisions relating to the retirement age which makes it as per the UGC norms. 12. Sri.N.M.Madhu thereafter tries to impress upon us that Dr.Sarala cannot be found to be a UGC qualified person because the scrutiny committee found her otherwise in Ext.P12(e) report, appended along with W.P.(C)No.1890/2013. We have already answered this contention in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment and we have already recorded that merely because the scrutiny committee finds to the contrary, it would not obtain favour in law especially when, as has been rightly found by the learned Single Judge, the UGC Regulations speak to the contrary. Indubitably, the report of the scrutiny committee is in variance to the UGC regulations, and therefore, the learned Single Judge has correctly assessed the situation and found that the said report cannot override the Regulations. Indubitably, the report of the scrutiny committee is in variance to the UGC regulations, and therefore, the learned Single Judge has correctly assessed the situation and found that the said report cannot override the Regulations. That being so and without a specific challenge to any of the findings of the learned Single Judge, recorded in paragraphs 9 to 11 of the impugned judgment extracted above, we cannot offer our imprimatur to any such submission made before us by the learned counsel. 13. Sri.Elvin Peter, the learned counsel appearing for the teachers in question, refutes the above submissions of Sri.N.M.Madhu and adds that these two teachers are to be construed as being Associate Professors, since they are entitled to the benefits of career progression under the “UGC Regulations of minimum qualification for appointment and career advancement of lecturers, readers and professors in Universities and Colleges”. According to him, both these teachers are entitled to the benefits of career progression, since they are both qualified for such purpose and therefore, that they have been granted the scale of pay of Associate Professors. He, however, concedes that Dr.Sarala continues to be an Assistant Professor, whereas Dr.Sathiavathy has been, in fact, promoted as an Associate Professor in Hindi. We are afraid that though we find favour with the first limb of the submission of Sri. Elvin Peter, the second limb, that Dr.Sathiavathy has already been promoted as an Associate Professor, is not really borne out by any of the records, except a letter that has been issued by the then Principal, Dr.Vikraman who, we understand has also initiated a litigation on these lines, which is pending before this Court. Sri.Elvin Peter in fact refers to Ext.P12(f) in Writ Appeal No.401/2018 to show that in fact the Registrar has issued a notification promoting Dr.Sathiavathy as an Associate Professor. In any event of the matter, this is not an issue that should gain our attention in these proceedings and the question as to whether Dr.Sathiavathy is an Associate Professor or an Assistant Professor is not germane for our conclusions in this judgment and we therefore, leave it open for being agitated by the parties if they are so desirous in doing so in appropriate proceedings. 14. 14. Suffice to say, both Dr.Sathiavathy and Dr.Sarala are continuing as Assistant Professors in the services of the institution (Dr.Sathiavathy may or may not be an Associate Professor) and that they are fully qualified to hold the said post under the relevant UGC Regulations. That being so, the only scope of our enquiry is to whether the letter of the appellant-Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, dated 28.12.2012, a copy of which was marked as Ext.P20 in W.P.(C)No.12786/2011 and as Ext.P9 in W.P.(C)No.1890/2013, would find approval in law. The said letter, which was impugned before the learned Single Judge, says that the provisions of the revised scheme will not be applicable to the teachers in question on the ground that they are not qualified under the UGC Regulations. We are afraid that going by the conclusions we have already recorded above and the findings of the learned Single Judge, this letter cannot be sustained in law since it is obvious that it has been issued on the basis of incorrect factual premise. 15. In the conspectus of our observations above, we are in affirmation of the findings, holdings and conclusions of the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned before us and certain, therefore, that these appeals deserve to be dismissed, however without costs. These writ appeals are dismissed accordingly.