JUDGMENT B. R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, who was appointed as a Lecturer in Physics in pay scale of Rs. 525-1150/- with D.A. and A.D.A under the Sanjay Memorial Institute of Technology (SMIT), has filed this application to quash the notice dated 25.05.2006 issued by opposite party No.5 in Annexure-4 to superannuate him from service, on attaining the age of 58 years, with effect from 15.07.2006/31.07.2006 whichever is later, and consequential order of rejection of his representation dated 30.05.2006 communicated to him in Annexure-9 dated 07.06.2006. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner, having acquired M.Phil. Degree, was selected and appointed on 06.08.1982 as Lecturer in Physics in the SMIT in pay scale of Rs. 525-1150/- with D.A. and A.D.A. as admissible to the Government servants of the State. Thereafter, considering his qualification, vide order dated 21.09.1983, the authority granted him UGC scale of pay of Rs. 700-1600/-. Keeping in view his experience, on 17.01.2006, opposite party No.5 directed the petitioner to remain in-charge of Principal, Diploma Wing of SMIT. Subsequently, in continuation of the order dated 17.01.2006, the petitioner was allowed to continue as regular Principal vide order dated 24.01.2006. While he was so continuing, a notice was issued on 25.05.2006 intimating him that he would be relieved from service of SMIT on attaining the age of 58 years. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 30.05.2006 stating inter alia that he was to continue in service, till he attained the age of 60 years, as per the rules framed by the SMIT, or as per the provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), he was to continue till he attained the age of 62 years. On consideration of such representation, the authority passed order dated 07.06.2006 holding good the notice of retirement of the petitioner from service issued vide letter dated 25.05.2006, meaning thereby, the petitioner has to be retired at the age of 58 years. Hence, this application. 3. Mr. J.R. Deo, learned counsel appea-ring on behalf of Mr. G. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that after the appointment of the petitioner on 06.08.1982, an advertisement to fill up some teaching posts in SMIT was issued on 07.07.1989 in Annexure-6 wherein the retirement age was mentioned as 60 years. Hence, this application. 3. Mr. J.R. Deo, learned counsel appea-ring on behalf of Mr. G. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that after the appointment of the petitioner on 06.08.1982, an advertisement to fill up some teaching posts in SMIT was issued on 07.07.1989 in Annexure-6 wherein the retirement age was mentioned as 60 years. Though the petitioner's post was not advertised, but similarly situated posts were advertised and the age of retirement was fixed as 60 years. The SMIT also framed Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Rules wherein the retirement age was fixed as 60 years. It is contended that since SMIT is a diploma level technical institute, as per Clause-12.0 of the AICTE Revised Pay Scale and Service Conditions, the age of superannuation of teachers in diploma level technical institutions would be 62 years. Therefore, the notice issued directing the petitioner to retire at the age of 58 years cannot sustain in the eye of law and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. Consequentially, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit in accordance with law. 4. Mr. L. Samantray, learned counsel appearing for opposite partie Nos.4 and 5 contended that pursuant to the notice in Annexure-4 dated 25.05.2006 and rejection of representation dated 30.05.2006 communicated vide letter dated 07.06.2006, the petitioner was to retire at the age of 58 years and thereby the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of continuing in service up to the age of 60 years. It is further contended that on 20.07.1990 a notification was issued amending Rules-3(i) and 7 of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Rules prepared by the SMIT where the age of retirement of the employee was fixed to 58 years. Therefore, once Rule-3(i) has been amended fixing the age of retirement to 58 years, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of continuance in service up to the age of 60 years. It is further contended that in case of similarly situated employees of the diploma institutes, which are under the control of the Government, the age of their retirement has been fixed to 58 years. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority by issuing the impugned notice to the petitioner to retire at the age of 58 years. As such, the action taken by the authority is wholly and fully justified, which does not warrant interference by this Court at this stage. 5. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority by issuing the impugned notice to the petitioner to retire at the age of 58 years. As such, the action taken by the authority is wholly and fully justified, which does not warrant interference by this Court at this stage. 5. This Court heard Mr. J.R. Deo on behalf of Mr. G. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. Samantray, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record. Pleadings between the parties having been exchanged, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. The facts delineated above are not disputed. The SMIT is engaged in imparting education in Engineering, Science of different faculties and the nature of function discharged by it is nothing but public duty. This Court in Jaminikanta Das vs. Governing Body of Sanjay Memorial Institute of Technology, reported in, Vol. 84 (1997) CLT 483 held that the writ petition is maintainable against SMIT taking into law laid down by the apex Court in Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust vs. V.R. Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607 ; Unnikrishnan, J.P. etc. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh etc., AIR 1993 SC 2178 ; Dwarka Nath vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, D. Ward, Kanpur, AIR 1966 SC 81 ; and the judgments of this Court in Antaryami Rath vs. State of Orissa, (1990) 70 CLT 642 , Basanti Mohanty vs. State of Orissa, (1991) 72 CLT 127 , and Susama Patnaik vs. Managing Committee, Buxi Jagabandhu English Medium School, (1992) 73 CLT 494 and other unreported judgments. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Physics on 06.08.1982 vide Annexure-1. When he acquired M. Phil qualification, he was extended with the UGC scale of pay and finally he discharged the duty of Principal of Diploma Wing of the SMIT. But while he was so continuing, a notice was issued on 25.05.2006 stating inter alia that he would attain the age of 58 years on 15.07.2006 and he would be retired on 15.07.2006/31.07.2006, whichever is later, and relieved from the SMIT. But while he was so continuing, a notice was issued on 25.05.2006 stating inter alia that he would attain the age of 58 years on 15.07.2006 and he would be retired on 15.07.2006/31.07.2006, whichever is later, and relieved from the SMIT. The petitioner submitted a representation on 30.05.2006 stating inter alia that he was to continue till he attained the age of 60 years as per the rules framed by SMIT applicable to him, or as per the AICTE guidelines he was to continue till he attained the age of 62 years. On consideration of such representation, vide letter dated 07.06.2006, it was communicated that the notice of retirement from service issued by SMIT on 25.05.2006 holds good, meaning thereby, the petitioner was to retire at the age of 58 years but not at 60 or 62 years, as claimed by him. 7. For just and proper adjudication of the case in hand, it is worthwhile to mention that for recruitment of similarly situated teaching faculties of other departments the SMIT issued an advertisement on 04.07.1989 in Annexure-6 wherein with regard to age of retirement it was indicated as follows:- The age of retirement is 60 years. The SMIT for its employees framed Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Rules, 1990 in Rule -3(1) whereof it has been envisaged thus:' The date of compulsory Retirement of a regular employee shall be the date on which he completes the age of sixty years.' These Rules were framed in the year 1990. But by virtue of notification dated 20.07.1990 issued by SMIT, Rule 3(i) of the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Rules, 1990 was amended as follows: ' The date of retirement of an employee shall be the date on which he completed the age of fifty-eight years.' 8. When the matter thus stood, in reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties Nos.4 and 5, the petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit wherein a reference has been made to ' Sanjay Memorial Institute of Technology, Recruitment and Promotion Regulation, 1990' , which was framed on 17.11.1990. Clause-21 of the said Regulation reads thus:' Superannuation and Retirement:- The date of retirement of SMIT employee shall be date on which the employee completes the age of 60 years. If the date is in the middle of a month, it will be taken that he/she has retired from the end of the month. Clause-21 of the said Regulation reads thus:' Superannuation and Retirement:- The date of retirement of SMIT employee shall be date on which the employee completes the age of 60 years. If the date is in the middle of a month, it will be taken that he/she has retired from the end of the month. The age of superannuation of Class-IV employees of the SMIT shall be 60 years.' Therefore, by necessary implication, the amendment which was made by way of notification dated 20.07.1990 in Annexure-A/4 has merged with Regulation, 1990 framed on 17.11.1990 wherein the age of superannuation and retirement has been fixed to 60 years. 9. The petitioner was continuing as Principal of Diploma Wing of SMIT, which is regulated by the Rules and Regulations framed by AICTE. The AICTE- notification on revision of pay-scales and associated terms and conditions of service of teachers, librarians and physical education personnel for diploma level technical institutions, which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ application, prescribes age of superannuation in Clause-12.0 which reads thus:' Superannuation and Re-employment The age of superannuation of teachers in diploma level technical institutions would be 62 years and thereafter no extension of service shall be given. However, an institute may re-employ a superannuated teacher, upto 65 years of age in accordance with the existing provision (s) in the Statute/Memorandum of Association and Rules/Schemes. Regulations and Bye-Laws of the Institute, as the case may be.' 10. In view of all the above provisions, it is to be considered whether the petitioner has to retire at the age of 58 years, pursuant to notice issued by opposite parties, or till he attains the age of 60 years as per rules and regulations framed by the SMIT, or till 62 years of age as per the AICTE norms and guidelines. 11. There is no iota of doubt that the petitioner was serving under the SMIT and to regulate the service conditions of its employees the SMIT has framed own rules. Under the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Rules, 1990, the age of retirement was fixed to 60 years, but by virtue of notification dated 20.07.1990 in Clause-3(i) it was re-fixed to 58 years. Subsequently, however, as per SMIT Recruitment and Promotion Regulation, 1990, the date of retirement was fixed to 60 years, which had come into force after amendment of Clause-3(i) of the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Rules, 1990, i.e., on 17.11.1990. Subsequently, however, as per SMIT Recruitment and Promotion Regulation, 1990, the date of retirement was fixed to 60 years, which had come into force after amendment of Clause-3(i) of the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Rules, 1990, i.e., on 17.11.1990. Needless to mention, the rules and regulations framed by the SMIT are binding on its employees. When the rules and regulations framed by the SMIT indicate that the age of retirement of its employees is 60 years, in that case, the notice issued directing the petitioner to retire at the age of 58 years, pursuant to Annexure-4 dated 25.05.2006, has no justification, and accordingly consequential rejection of petitioner- s representation holding good the notice of his retirement from service issued by the SMIT on 25.05.2006, that the petitioner was to retire at the age of 58 years, cannot sustain in the eye of law. 12. The AICTE is vested with statutory authority for planning, formulation and the maintenance of norms and standards, accreditation, funding of priority areas, monitoring and evaluation, maintaining parity of certificates and awards and ensuring the coordination and integrated development of technical and management education. The law is enacted to provide statutory powers to AICTE to ensure: (i) proper planning and co-ordinated development of technical education system throughout the country; (ii) promotion of qualitative improvement of technical education in relation of planned quantitative growth; and (iii) regulation of the system and proper maintenance of norms and standards. Accordingly, the powers and functions assigned to the AICTE, inter alia, provide laying down norms and standards for programmes giving approval for setting up of technical institutions, prescribing guidelines for admission of students and the charging of fees, and inspecting and evaluating institutions periodically with a view to maintaining stands and to provide withholding recognition of programmes and institutions. As a part of its overall co-ordination and development responsibilities, the AICTE will also give grants to institutions for identified developmental purposes. In addition, the AICTE will promote innovation, research and development, linkages with industry and greater access to technical education by women, handicapped, and the weaker sections of the society. 13. As a part of its overall co-ordination and development responsibilities, the AICTE will also give grants to institutions for identified developmental purposes. In addition, the AICTE will promote innovation, research and development, linkages with industry and greater access to technical education by women, handicapped, and the weaker sections of the society. 13. To provide for establishment of an AICTE with a view to proper planning and coordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvements of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters connected therewith, the Parliament has enacted ' All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987' . The ' technical institution' has been defined under Section 2(h) to mean an institution, not being a University, which offers courses or programmes of technical education, and shall include such other institutions as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions. The SMIT is a ' technical institution' which imparts both degree and diploma courses to its students. Therefore, imparting technical education by providing diploma courses is also to be regulated under the AICTE norms and guidelines. 14. The AICTE established by an Act of Parliament for proper planning and coordinated development, regulation and maintenance of Norms and Standards in the Technical Education System throughout the country. Consequent upon revision of pay scales based on recommendations of the Central Vth Pay Commission, the AICTE recommended revision of Pay Scales and Service Conditions for the Diploma Level Technical Institutions in the country. These recommendations are applicable to all the Diploma Level Technical Institutions under the purview of the AICTE. The recommendations contain provisions for improvement of Service Conditions and Career Advancement for the Teachers of the Diploma Level Technical Institutions and also provide for incentives for higher qualifications. It has also been clarified that neither the Government of India nor the AICTE will bear any additional expenditure arising out of the implementation of these revised pay scales of diploma level technical institutions. As per clause-12.0, which deals with superannuation and re-employment, the age of superannuation of teachers in diploma level technical institutions would be 62 years and thereafter no extension of service shall be given. As per clause-12.0, which deals with superannuation and re-employment, the age of superannuation of teachers in diploma level technical institutions would be 62 years and thereafter no extension of service shall be given. However, an institute may re-employ a superannuated teacher up to 65 years of age in accordance with the existing provisions in the statutes/memorandum of association and rules-schemes, regulations and bye-laws of the institute, as the case may be. Therefore, if the age of superannuation has been prescribed for the teachers of diploma level technical institutions as 62 years by the norms prescribed by the AICTE, the same should be adhered to in accordance with law. Admittedly, the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short ' AICTE Act, 1987' ) is a Central Act which has been enacted by the Parliament. 15. The Article 246 deals with the distribution of legislative powers as between the Union and State Legislatures, with reference to the different Lists in the 7th Schedule. The gist of the Article, in short, is that the Union Parliament has full and exclusive power to legislate with respect to matters in List I and has also concurrent power to legislate with respect to matters in List III, the State Legislature on the other hand/has exclusive power to legislate with respect to matters in List-II, minus matters falling in Lists I and III and has concurrent power with respect to matters include in List III. 16. In Union of India vs. Harbhajan Singh Dhillon, AIR 1972 SC 1061 , the Apex Court held that the functioning of Article 246(1) read with Entries 1 to 96 of List I of Seventh Schedule is to give positive power to Parliament to legislate in respect of these Entries. Object is not to debar Parliament from legislating on a matter, even if other provisions of the Constitution enable it to do so. What one has to ask is, whether the matter sought to be legislated is included in List II or List III and no question has to be asked about List I. If the answer is in the negative, then it follows that Parliament has power to make laws with respect to that matter. 17. What one has to ask is, whether the matter sought to be legislated is included in List II or List III and no question has to be asked about List I. If the answer is in the negative, then it follows that Parliament has power to make laws with respect to that matter. 17. In Greater Bombay Co-op, Bank Ltd. vs. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. AIR 2007 SC 1584 : (2007) SCC 236, the Apex Court held as follows: ' The supremacy of Parliament has been provided for by the non obstante clause in Article 246(1) and the words ' subject to' in Articles 246(2) and (3). Therefore, under Article 246(1) if any of the entries in the three lists overlap, the entry in List I will prevail. Additionally, some of the entries in the State List have been made expressly subject to the power of Parliament to legislate either under List I or under List III. Entries in the lists of the Seventh Schedule have been liberally interpreted; nevertheless courts have been wary of upsetting this balance by a process of interpretation so as to deprive any entry of its content and reduce it to ' useless lumber' . The use of the word, ' exclusive' in clause (3) denotes that within the legislative fields contained in List II, the State Legislatures exercise authority as plenary and ample as Parliamentary.' 18. In Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1019 : (1983) 4 SCC 45 , the Apex Court considered the scope and limitation of the legislative powers of the Union and State Legislature and its ultimate analysis and observed thus:- Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (2) and (3). The non obstante clause in Article 246(1) provides for predominance or supremacy of Union legislature. This power is not encumbered by anything contained in clauses (2) and (3), for, these clauses themselves are expressly limited and made subject to the non obstante clause in Article 246 (1). The combined effect of the different clauses contained in Article 246 is no more and no less than this: that in respect of any matter falling within List I, Parliament has exclusive power of legislation. 19. The combined effect of the different clauses contained in Article 246 is no more and no less than this: that in respect of any matter falling within List I, Parliament has exclusive power of legislation. 19. In view of the constitutional provisions as mentioned above, entry 66 of List-I of 7th Schedule states as follows: ' 66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institution for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.' Entry 25 of the List-Ill-Concurrent List of 7th Schedule states as follows: ' 25. Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour.' 20. Therefore, both the parliament as well as State legislature has got power to frame law in respect of the technical institutions imparting education but so far as the technical institutions are concerned, which are regulated under the AICTE Act, 1987, which is governing the field, because the State Legislature has not framed any Act and Rules governing the functioning of the technical institutions in the State. Consequentially, the Parliament has exclusive power to make laws so far as the technical institutions are concerned and as such, the AICTE Act, 1987 governs the field. Consequentially, the AICTE issued notification on revision of pay scales and associated terms and conditions of service of the teachers, librarians and physical education personnel for diploma level technical institutions. As per Clause-12.0, which provides of superannuation and reemployment, the age of superannuation has been fixed to 62 years. 21. The SMIT being a technical institution and regulated by the provisions of the AICTE Act, 1987, the notification issued for grant of revision of pay scales and associated terms and conditions of service of the teachers, librarians and physical education personnel for diploma level technical institutions is binding on it. Even-though SMIT has framed its own rules and regulations to regulate the service conditions of its own employees working in technical institutions, but the same cannot be repugnant to the provisions contained in AICTE Act, 1987, Rules Regulations and Notifications issued from time to time. Therefore, any rules and regulations framed by the SMIT repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act that can be declared as ultra vires. 22. Therefore, any rules and regulations framed by the SMIT repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act that can be declared as ultra vires. 22. If the Parliament in its wisdom has framed guidelines under the provisions of the AICTE Act, 1987 and Rules framed there under extending the revised scale of pay to the teachers and other personnel for diploma level technical institutions, pursuant to Annexure-5, the same cannot be superseded by the rules and regulations framed by the SMIT. In view of such consideration, the SMIT Recruitment and Promotion Regulation, 1990 fixing the age of superannuation/ retirement to 60 years under Clause-21, being repugnant to the AICTE notification on revision of pay scales and associated terms and conditions of service of the teachers, librarians and physical education personnel for diploma level technical institutions fixing the age of superannuation and re-employment at Clause 12.0, cannot sustain in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the SMIT, being a technical institution and regulated by the provisions of the AICTE Act, 1987, Rules, Regulation and Notification, the age of superannuation of teachers in diploma level technical institutions would be 62 years, Consequentially, the petitioner is to continue in service till he attains the age of 62 years as per the AICTE notification pursuant to Annexure-5. 23. In view of such position, the notice of superannuation issued to the petitioner on 25.05.2006 in Annexure-4 and consequential order of rejection of his representation dated 30.05.2006 communicated to him in Annexure-9 dated 07.06.2006 holding such notice as good, are liable to be quashed and accordingly the same are hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 62 years, as per the AICTE norms and notification annexed as Annexure-5. It is therefore directed that the financial benefits, as due and admissible to the petitioner, shall be calculated and paid to him with other consequential benefits, within a period of four months from the date of communication of the judgment. The writ petition is thus allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.