ORDER : (T. Rajani, J.) These writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are preferred by the petitioners, who are working in the 4th and 5th respondent-unaided Colleges respectively. These writ petitions are motivated by the fact that the petitioners were served with intimation letters, both dated 01.06.2019, intimating that they will have to retire on 31.08.2019 on completion of 58 and 60 years respectively. 2. Assailing the said intimations, the petitioners are before this court, on the ground that their age of retirement should be only 60 years, as per the recommendations of the Andhra Pradesh Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, (for short, “AFRC”). The petitioner in WP No.7266 of 2019 is appointed as Attender in the 5th respondent-Bapatla Engineering College on 11.04.1984, on the recommendations of the appointing committee for non-teaching staff, who come within the category of Last Grade Servants, while the petitioner in W.P.No.6916 of 2019, was appointed as Lab Assistant on temporary basis in the year 1998 in the 4th respondent-Bapatla College of Pharmacy on qualification basis and upon successful completion of temporary service of two years, the petitioner was appointed as Lab Assistant on regular basis vide proceedings of the 6th respondent, dated 06.07.2000, and comes within the category of non-teaching staff. 3. The plea of the petitioners is that they are entitled to continue up to 60 years as per AFRC Regulations and also as per the State Government orders made in respect of all the employees in the State. The service conditions and superannuation of the teaching staff working in Degree colleges are governed by the Regulations framed under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, known as All Indian Council for Technical Education (Pay Scales, Service conditions and qualifications for the Teachers and other academic staff in Technical Institutions (Degree) Regulations, 2010’ and service conditions of the non-teaching staff and last grade servants are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1872 (for short, “the Act”). As per the AFRC constituted by the Government of AP vide G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 17.05.2007, the age of superannuation for teaching faculty is 65 years and for non-teaching staff it is 60 years. The Respondents-Colleges come within the purview of AFRC and the fee charged by the college is governed by AFRC recommendations and should comply with the directions of AFRC. As per the AFRC constituted by the Government of AP vide G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 17.05.2007, the age of superannuation for teaching faculty is 65 years and for non-teaching staff it is 60 years. The Respondents-Colleges come within the purview of AFRC and the fee charged by the college is governed by AFRC recommendations and should comply with the directions of AFRC. The AFRC upon the request of the private professional colleges gives permission for hike of fee on certain conditions like pay scales to the staff and also determines the age of superannuation of the staff. Hence, it has to follow the norms fixed by the AFRC. 4. The AFRC upon the request of the private professional colleges gives permission for hike of fee on certain conditions like pay scales to the staff and also determines the age of superannuation of the staff. Hence, it has to follow the norms fixed by the AFRC. 4. The respondents filed counter contending that AICTE or AFRC regulations or the amended 78-A of the Act has no application to the employees, who are working in an unaided private educational institutions; as per the bye-laws of society, the President shall be the person to sue or to be sued on behalf of the society; the petitioner did not make the President of Society as respondent in the writ petition; though the age of superannuation fixed under AFRC Regulations is 60 and also as per the amended Section 78-A of the Education Act, it is illegal; the AICTE Regulations apply only to the teaching staff in technical institutions and universities, including deeming universities imparting technical education and other such courses, subject to the rules made by the trusts and societies in accordance with the norms under the Act; the short title and commencement of Rules indicates its applicability only to Teachers and other academic staff subject to the Rules made by the Trusts and Society; it did not say that it is applicable to the non-teaching staff working in the unaided educational institutions; the governing body of the society in its meeting held on 30.01.2019 passed resolution, unanimously resolving to stick on to the retirement age of 58 yeas to non-teaching staff working under the society; the age of superannuation which was mentioned also relates to persons involved in classroom teaching staff but not to the non-teaching staff; the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to be continued till the age of 60 years is not based on any guidelines, which were relied on by the writ petitioners; it did not indicate the non-teaching staff members are entitled to be continued beyond 58 years; the ALCTE Regulations were applicable to the unaided educational institutions in respect of non-teaching staff; this court passed final order in WP No.9144 of 2018, against which W.A.No.776 of 2018 was preferred. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Court declined to suspend the order in W.P.No.9144 of 2018; the petitioner cannot equate himself to teaching staff; A plain reading of AICTE Regulations indicate that as there is a dearth of qualified teaching staff, the concerned technical/educational institutions are authorises to continue them up to the age of 65 years. 5. Heard Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6916 of 2019; Sri N.Bharat Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.7266 of 2019; Government Pleader for Education appearing for respondents 1 and 2 in both the writ petitions; Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy, Standing Counsel appearing for AICTE for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.6916 of 2019; and Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the Colleges. 6. The arguments of the counsels appearing on either side include reiteration of the pleadings. Apart from that, the counsel for the petitioner takes this court through the guidelines for furnishing fee proposals by private unaided professional institutions in the State for the block period 2019-20 to 2021-22. He contends that under the head, ‘salary expenditure’, the age of retirement is also made as one of the factors and it specifies that the retirement age for non-teaching staff and for last grade servants shall be 60. The counsel contends that the AFRC Regulations, which have the force of Statutory Regulations, also took the expenditure of administration and maintenance as one of the factors for fee fixation. He contends that, in such circumstances, the age of categorisation of staff as prescribed under the guidelines have to be stuck to. He also relies on the guidelines of the AICTE, wherein it was specified that the service rules for the employees of the private unaided educational institutions approved by the AICTE are governed by the respective society/ members/management in accordance with the norms applicable to the similar employees under the State Government. He refers to the letter, dated 07.02.2007, which was issued by the President of the 5th respondent-College to one N.Subba Rao, Lab Technician, in answer to the letter, dated 06.01.2017, stating that the Management is following Educational Rules framed under the Act, the instructions issued by the Government from time to times and the Judgments of the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court. It also specified that since there is no such valid ‘service conditions book’ for teaching and non-teaching staff, 1995, the request for certified copy question does not arise. On the basis of this letter, the counsel contends that the Act has to be followed and that Section 78-A of the Act specifies the age of superannuation of the staff in aided private Educational Institutions and it specifies the age of superannuation for non-teaching staff and last grade servants, as 60 years. 7. On the other hand, the counsels for the respondents contend that AFRC does not have statutory recognition and hence, the Rules framed by the AFRC cannot be pressed into service by the petitioners. In answer to the letter addressed by the President of the 5th respondent College to one N.Subba Rao, wherein it was expressed that the Management was following Education Act, the counsels argument is that the said letter is prior to the amendment of the Act. The unamended Section 78-A of the Act specifies only 58 years as the age of superannuation for both non-teaching staff and last grade servants. The counsel for the 5th respondent College vehemently contends that the private unaided colleges have complete independence in deciding the age of superannuation and every aspect touching upon the administration of the institution and hence, the age of superannuation, as fixed by the college, has to be the age of superannuation for the concerned employees. The counsels rely on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in P.A.INAMDAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASTHTRA, 2005(6) SCC 537 wherein it was held that the unaided institutions can have their own obligation and duty to maintain requisite standards of professional excellence and that the said procedure has to be fair, transparent, non-exploitative and based on merit. The judgment of the Supreme Court in ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION V. STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2003) 6 SCC 697 , in which the Judgment of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION V. STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2002) 8 SCC 481 was interpreted, was referred to the Bench. It was no doubt clarified that unaided institutions not deriving any aid for State Funds, can have their own admissions, but it is also clarified that it should be fair, transparent, and non exploitative and based on merit. It was no doubt clarified that unaided institutions not deriving any aid for State Funds, can have their own admissions, but it is also clarified that it should be fair, transparent, and non exploitative and based on merit. It also held that while embarking upon resolving issues of constitutional significance, the spirit of the constitution has to be kept in view as spelt out by its entire scheme. So far as the statutory provisions regulating the facts of administration are concerned, it is stated that in case of unaided educational institution, the regulatory measure of control should be minimal and the conditions of recognition as well as the conditions of affiliation to a university or board have to be complied with, but in the matter of day-to-day management, like the appointment of staff, teaching and non-teaching, and administrative control over them, the management should have the freedom and there should not be any external controlling agency. 8. One of the issues which came up before the Supreme Court in the above cited judgment is the fee structure. It held, to set up reasonable fee structure is also a component of the right to establish and administer an institution within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, as per the law declared in PAI’S case. Every institution is free to devise its own fee structure subject to the limitation that there can be no profiteering and no capitation fee can be charged directly or indirectly, or in any form. In answer to the question of fee structure, it held that every institution is free to device its own fee structure but the same can be regulated in the interest of preventing profiteering. 9. In this case, while deciding the fee structure, the guidelines prescribed the retirement age of non-teaching and last grade servants as 60 years. As regards, the application of the Education Act, which the 5th respondent proclaimed to have been following, the counsels for the respondents contend that it is the unamended Act, under which age of superannuation is 58 years that was proclaimed as being followed, but not the amended Act. From the letter, dated 06.01.2007, it can be seen that the President proclaimed that the Management is following Education Act. The reason for following the Act is also stated to be no valid ‘Service Conditions Book’ for teaching and non-teaching staff being there. From the letter, dated 06.01.2007, it can be seen that the President proclaimed that the Management is following Education Act. The reason for following the Act is also stated to be no valid ‘Service Conditions Book’ for teaching and non-teaching staff being there. The fact remains that even at present also, there is no Service Conditions Book for the unaided educational institutions. The basis for following the Act is the absence of Service Conditions Book which continues to be the situation. There is no intention expressed by the Management that it did not want to follow the unamended Act. From the letter cited above, the intention of the management, to follow the Education Act is, clear. 10. As regards, the statutory nature of the AFRC, the counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in VASAVI ENGINEERING COLLEGE PARENTS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS, 2019(7) SCC 172 , wherein it was observed that the TAFRC therein is a statutory body headed by the retired High Court Judge and experts from various fields. It also observed that Rule 3 Clause (vii) vests TAFRC with the power to frame its own procedure in accordance with the regulations notified by the Government in that regard and pursuant to which the guidelines for fee fixation have been framed. Hence, there cannot be any doubt that the regulations made by the AFRC have the force of statutory regulations. The Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.9144 of 2018 relied upon by the respondents considered that AFRC has no statutory power to fix the age of superannuation. The Judgment of the Supreme Court was not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Judge. In the said judgment, the court observed that the regulations of AFRC do not contain any provision regarding fixation of age of superannuation of the employees working in the engineering colleges. Hence, the said judgment would not help the respondents. The age of superannuation of both the teaching, non-teaching, last grade employees, is shown as an important component for deciding the fee structure and the guidelines issued by the AFRC are clear that the age of retirement for non-teaching and last grade servants shall be 60 years. Hence, the said judgment would not help the respondents. The age of superannuation of both the teaching, non-teaching, last grade employees, is shown as an important component for deciding the fee structure and the guidelines issued by the AFRC are clear that the age of retirement for non-teaching and last grade servants shall be 60 years. The AFRC Regulations prescribe that the expenditure of administration and maintenance, of which payment of salaries to the staff is one of the components, shall be taken into consideration while prescribing the fee. Hence, when the age of superannuation of last grade employees and the non teaching staff is taken as 60 years while prescribing fee structure, it cannot be now said by the respondents that the said factor does not have any relevance to the fixation of fee and that the respondent college cannot be bound by the said Regulations. On such a stand, the prohibited factor of profiteering & unfairness come into play. It is not only the declaration to follow the Education Act, but also the mention in AFRC, that would make it fair on the part of the 5th respondent to continue the petitioners in service till they attain 60 years of age. 11. The contention raised, with regard to the President of the Society being the person, who has to be sued, the petitioners filed I.A.No.2 of 2019 impleading the President of the Society and the same was ordered by virtue of the order, dated 07.08.2019. 12. In view of the above discussion, this court opines that the impugned intimation letters, both dated 01.06.2019, are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside. 13. With the above observations, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the intimation letters, both dated 01.06.2019, are hereby set aside. The petitioners shall be continued till they attain the age of 60 years. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.