ORDER : 1. Mr. M.P. Srikanth for Mr. M.S. Parthasarathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. V. Shivareddy, High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. M.V. Seshachala Senior counsel for Mr. Arvind V. Chavan, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally. 3. In this petition under Article 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondent No. 4 to consider the representation dated 20.06.2016 submitted by him. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing continuation of service of the petitioner in the establishment of the respondent No. 4 till the petitioner attains the age of 70 years as provided under minimum qualification for teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’ for short). The petitioner also seeks a declaration that Bye-law 21(1) of the Bye-laws of respondent No. 4 is illegal improper and opposed to the provisions of the Regulations. 4. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent No. 4 on 12.09.1986 as a Lecturer on Radio Therapy and worked on the aforesaid course till 26.01.1994. Subsequently, the petitioner discharged his services as Associate Professor from 27.01.1994 till 25.09.2002. On 26.09.2002, the petitioner discharged his duties as a Professor and Head of Department of Radio Therapy and was also made Medical Superintendent. It is averred in the writ petition that the date of birth of the petitioner is 06.08.1958. However, the same is recorded as 06.08.1956 in the service records and High School Records. The petitioner submitted a representation on 08.01.2015 to respondent No. 4 for changing the date of birth. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil suit viz. O.S. No. 7535/2015 before the court of City Civil Court, Bangalore and sought for a decree of mandatory injunction seeking a direction for respondent No. 4 and the Karnataka Secondary Educational Examination Board to alter the date of birth as 06.08.1958 in all the records. Admittedly, the aforesaid civil suit has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2016 and the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree. Admittedly, the aforesaid civil suit has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2016 and the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree. In the meanwhile, petitioner learnt about the amendment in the Regulations, by which the maximum age limit to which extension in service was granted was fixed at 70 years. The petitioner as per the Bye-laws of respondent No. 4 has been superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this court seeking the reliefs as stated supra. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to the resolution dated 25.01.2002 passed by the Governing Council of respondent No. 4 submitted that the Regulations were adopted by the Governing Council of respondent No. 4 in totality and therefore, as per the amendment made in the Regulations in terms of the Notification dated 17.09.2010, the age of superannuation of the petitioner would be 70 years. It is further submitted that respondent No. 4 being a teaching institute has to follow the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir N. and Others vs. State of Karala and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 685 as well as decision of this Court dated 27.10.2006 in W.P. No. 8022/2006. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that respondent No. 4 is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1860 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and it is not under an obligation to follow the criteria fixed by the Medical Council of India with regard to the age of superannuation as the same is a state subject and the respondent No. 2 is bound to follow the qualifications prescribed by the State Government. It is further submitted that matter pertaining to the age of superannuation falls in the realm of policy decision and therefore, no fixed criteria can be laid and in the fact situation of the case, no judicial review is called for. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of supreme court in K. Nagaraj and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (1985) 5 SCC 583. 6. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of supreme court in K. Nagaraj and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (1985) 5 SCC 583. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on both the sides and have perused the record. Admittedly, under bye law 21(1) the age of superannuation of the petitioner is 60 years. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of the relevant extract of the minutes of the meeting of the governing council held on 25.01.2002, which reads as under: The Governing Council in principle approved adoption of Medical Counsel of India Regulation “Minimum Qualification of Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulation, 1988” in toto. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid resolution it is evident that the governing council in principal has approved the adoption of the Regulations. It is pertinent to note that aforesaid resolution does not indicate that subsequent amendments made in the Regulations shall ipso facto apply to the employees of respondent No. 4. The Regulations were amended by a Notification dated 16.03.2005. The relevant extract of the notification reads as under: “The maximum age limit upto which a person can be appointed or granted extension or re-employed in service against the posts of Teachers or Dean or Principal or Director, as the case may be, which are required to be filled up as per the norms of the Medical Council of India in any Medical College or teaching Institution for imparting Graduate and Post-Graduate medical education, shall be 65 years. The Clause ‘1A’ was inserted after paragraph 1, vide Notification dated 16.3.2005. The last words of the paragraph i.e. shall be 65 years, shall be amended as under in terms of notification dated 17.09.2010 shall be 70 years. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid extract of the regulations 1998, it is evident that the same is an enabling provision and does not confer any right on any person to continue in service upto the age of 65 years. Subsequently, by a notification dated 17.09.2010 the words shall be 65 years were substituted by words shall be 70 years. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid extract of the regulations 1998, it is evident that the same is an enabling provision and does not confer any right on any person to continue in service upto the age of 65 years. Subsequently, by a notification dated 17.09.2010 the words shall be 65 years were substituted by words shall be 70 years. Thus, if the Notification dated 17.09.2010 is read with conjunction with Notification dated 16.03.2005, it is evident that both the Notifications do not confer any right on a person to continue on the post of Teachers or Dean or Principal or Director to continue upto the age of either 65 years or 70 years. It only enables the medical college or teaching institute to appoint or grant an extension or reemploy in service any person upto the age of either 65 years or 70 years. 7. It is also pertinent to note that the aforesaid amendment in the Regulations do not apply to the employees of the respondent No. 4, as no resolution has been passed stating that the amendments made in the regulations of 1998 shall apply ipso facto to the employees of respondent No. 4. Besides that, even assuming the argument of the petitioner to be correct for a moment, the same is of no assistance to the petitioner as the aforesaid amendment do not confer any legal right to the petitioner to continue on the post in question till completion of 70 years. 8. It is note worthy that respondent No. 4 is a Society which is registered under the Act. The respondent No. 4 is financed, controlled and administered by the Governing Council and falls within the supervision of State Government. It is also pertinent to mention that public health sanitation hospitals, dispensaries including the age of attainment of superannuation is in the domain of the State Government. Therefore, the respondent No. 4-institution has prescribed the age of superannuation as 60 years in the Bye-law 21(1), which is in accordance with the superannuation fixed by the State Government. The Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India with regard to the age of superannuation would not apply ipso facto to the teaching staff of the respondent No. 4 which is a society registered under the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any such provision in this regard. 9. The Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India with regard to the age of superannuation would not apply ipso facto to the teaching staff of the respondent No. 4 which is a society registered under the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any such provision in this regard. 9. This Court is conscious of the fact that Entry 25 of the concurrent list is subject to the provisions of the Entries 63, 64, 65, 66 of list 1. However, instant case is not a case of a conflict between the law made by Central Government and the law enacted by the State Government. In the instant case, the Bye-laws framed by a Society registered under the Act are not in conformity with the Rules framed by the Medical Council of India i.e. the Regulations. The aforesaid Regulations ipso facto do not apply to a Society, which is an independent entity under the Act and even otherwise, the Regulations do not confer any power on the petitioner to claim superannuation at the age of 70 years and is merely an enabling provision. Therefore, no writ of mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner can be issued. So far as reliance placed by the petitioner in case of Sudhir N. and Others (supra) is concerned, the same is of no assistance to the petitioner as the Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case was dealing with the law enacted by the legislature, which was found to be contrary with the Regulations of the Medical Council of India. Therefore, it was held that the State Legislature cannot enact a law, which is in contravention with the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, which is not the issue involved in this writ petition. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is of no assistance to the petitioner. 10. In view of preceding analysis, the Bye-law 21(1) framed by respondent No. 4-Society cannot be held to be illegal and improper even if the same may not be consistent with the Regulations. Admittedly, the issue with regard to change of date of birth is pending consideration in an appeal. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. 11. In the result, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.