JUDGMENT : [P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.] 1. These writ appeals arise from the common judgment in two writ petitions, namely, W.P.(C) Nos.17442 and 17769 of 2022. As the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment, the appeals are also disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.17769 of 2022. 2. The matter relates to the age of superannuation of teachers of private colleges affiliated to various Universities in the State covered by the Direct Payment Scheme of the State Government. The first petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17769 of 2022 is an association of Principals of affiliated to private colleges and the second petitioner is one of the members of the first petitioner association. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.17442 of 2022 are Professors working in various private colleges in the State. 3. During 1998, the University Grants Commission (the UGC) notified a scheme for revision of pay scales, minimum qualifications for appointment and other service conditions of University and college teachers. The said scheme (the UGC Scheme) provided that the teachers will retire only at the age of 62 years. At the time of introduction of the UGC Scheme, teachers of private colleges in the State were being governed by the provisions contained in the respective University Statutes as regards their age of superannuation. In terms of the University Statutes, the age of superannuation of teachers is 56 years. Although the UGC Scheme was implemented in the State to a section of private college teachers, the prescription therein as regards the age of superannuation was not implemented in the State. 4. The UGC Scheme was replaced by the UGC on 30.06.2020 by the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (the 2010 Regulations). The 2010 Regulations is part of the records in the writ petitions as Ext.P1. 4. The UGC Scheme was replaced by the UGC on 30.06.2020 by the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (the 2010 Regulations). The 2010 Regulations is part of the records in the writ petitions as Ext.P1. As in the case of the UGC Scheme, although the 2010 Regulations were also primarily framed to cover central universities and educational institutions under the control of the Government of India, there is a provision in the 2010 Regulations providing for extension of its application to State Universities, and educational institutions affiliated to such Universities, provided the State Government adopts and implements the 2010 Regulations as a composite one. The 2010 Regulations provided that the age of superannuation shall be in accordance with the decision of the Government of India as contained in Appendix I. Appendix I to the 2010 Regulations is a letter addressed by the Government of India to the Secretary of the UGC on 31.12.2008. Earlier, while the UGC Scheme was in force, as there was an acute shortage of teachers in the institutions funded by the Government of India, it was decided to enhance the age of superannuation of teachers in such institutions from 62 years to 65 years, and the said decision was conveyed to the UGC by the Government of India on 23.03.2007 as per Ext.P2 letter. In Appendix I, the Government of India reiterated its stand as regards the age of superannuation as stated in Ext.P2 letter. In other words, even though there is no specific provision in the 2010 Regulations as regards the age of superannuation of teachers, it proceeded on the premise that the age of superannuation of teachers shall be 62 years. The State Government implemented the 2010 Regulations in terms of Ext.P3 order. In clause 11.7 of Ext.P3 order, it was, however, clarified that the age of superannuation of teachers shall continue as at present. 5. The Government of India has been extending financial assistance to State Governments which adopt and implement the 2010 Regulations. The State Government implemented the 2010 Regulations in terms of Ext.P3 order. In clause 11.7 of Ext.P3 order, it was, however, clarified that the age of superannuation of teachers shall continue as at present. 5. The Government of India has been extending financial assistance to State Governments which adopt and implement the 2010 Regulations. As the scheme in the Regulations had to be adopted and implemented as a composite one in order to claim financial assistance, an issue arose as to whether those States which have not adopted and implemented the 2010 Regulations as regards the age of superannuation of teachers are entitled to financial assistance from the Government of India. The said issue was resolved by the Government of India by deciding to de-link the condition namely, enhancement of age of superannuation for payment of financial assistance. Ext.P4 is the communication issued by the Government of India on 14.08.2012 to State Governments in this regard. In Ext.P4, it is stated that the said decision was taken, as the matter concerning enhancement of age of superannuation is exclusively within the domain of the policy making power of State Governments. 6. During 2016, while the 2010 Regulations as was implemented, were in force in the State, a few private college teachers approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) Nos.10257 and 11511 of 2016 claiming that they ought to be granted extended period of service till they attain the age of 65 years in terms of the 2010 Regulations. The petitioners therein relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Radhakrishnan Pillai v. Tranvancore Devaswom Board, 2016 (2) KLT 245 , to contend that in view of the adoption of the 2010 Regulations by the State of Kerala, the Universities and affiliated colleges in the State are bound to comply with the same. This Court dismissed the said writ petitions holding that a Regulation framed by the UGC under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (the UGC Act) which relates to Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India cannot alter the conditions of service of persons serving a State prescribed in terms of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. This Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar, (2013) 8 SCC 633 , to arrive at the said conclusion. This Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar, (2013) 8 SCC 633 , to arrive at the said conclusion. Ext.P5 is the judgment in the said cases. It was observed by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment that the decision of the full Bench in Radhakrishnan Pillai can have no application in the case of a statutory requirement as regards the age of superannuation prescribed by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution. Ext.P5 judgment was though challenged by the petitioners therein in appeal, the same was affirmed by the Division Bench as per Ext.P6 judgment. 7. While so, the 2010 Regulations was replaced by the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 (the 2018 Regulations). As in the case of 2010 Regulations, the 2018 Regulations were also implemented in the State on 29.06.2019 by Ext.P11 order. In clause 9.5 of Ext.P11 order also, it is clarified that the age of superannuation shall continue as at present. The writ petitions from which these writ appeals arise were instituted after Ext.P11 order contending that Exts.P5 and P6 decisions do not lay down the law correctly. According to the petitioners, the State Governments do not have any discretion to adopt the UGC Regulations in part and once it is adopted, it is obliged to implement the same as a whole. The petitioners, in the circumstances, challenged clause 11.7 of Ext.P3 order as also clause 9.5 of Ext.P11 order in the writ petitions insofar as the same provide that the age of superannuation of the teachers will continue to be 56 years. They have also claimed in the writ petitions, a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 62 years, as fixed under the UGC Scheme introduced in the year 1998. 8. While the writ petitions were pending, on 02.08.2022, the Apex Court affirmed Exts.P5 and P6 judgments in Civil Appeal No.5037 of 2022. In light of the said decision of the Apex Court, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions at the admission stage itself, as per the common judgment impugned in these appeals. 9. 8. While the writ petitions were pending, on 02.08.2022, the Apex Court affirmed Exts.P5 and P6 judgments in Civil Appeal No.5037 of 2022. In light of the said decision of the Apex Court, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions at the admission stage itself, as per the common judgment impugned in these appeals. 9. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the University Grants Commission as also the learned Standing Counsel for the various State universities arrayed in the writ petitions. 10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State Governments do not have any discretion to adopt the UGC Regulations in part and once it is adopted, it is obliged to implement the same as a composite package. The learned Senior Counsel has relied on Regulation 2.3.1 of the 2010 Regulations to establish the said case. The learned Senior Counsel has relied on paragraphs 70, 71 and 72 of the decision of the Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma also to contend that the State Government, if accepting the UGC Regulations, has to accept the same in full. It was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that it was certainly within the discretion of the State Government to take a decision as to whether the UGC Regulations are to be implemented, but if it decides to implement the same, it should do so in full. According to the learned Senior Counsel, Ext.P4 letter addressed by the Government of India to the State Governments is only a communication intimating the decision of the Government of India to waive the demand for reimbursement of financial assistance already disbursed. It was argued by the learned Senior Counsel that Ext.P4 letter is neither a direction under Section 20 of the UGC Act nor an amendment to the UGC Regulations and it cannot, therefore, nullify any provision in the UGC Regulations, much less the provision in the UGC Regulations which makes it obligatory for the State Government to implement the same as a composite one including the provision therein as regards the age of superannuation. It was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the writ petitions culminated in Ext.P5 judgment were writ petitions instituted seeking relief permitting the teachers to continue in service on attaining the age of 65 years based on the provision contained in Appendix I to the 2010 Regulations. It was argued by the learned Senior Counsel that the only question dealt with by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5037 of 2022 was the effect of Ext.P4 communication on the right of the State Government not to enhance the age of superannuation of teachers from 62 years to 65 years and the said decision cannot, therefore, have any bearing on the question raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions from which the writ appeals arise. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in the circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought not have dismissed the writ petitions relying only on the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5037 of 2022. It was argued by the learned Senior Counsel that the question whether the State Government can adopt the UGC Regulations in part was not considered at all by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5037 of 2022. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Sreejith P.S. v. Rajasree M.S., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473, Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179 and State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, 2022 (5) KLT OnLine 1159 (SC), the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the UGC Regulations being a subordinate legislation under a Central legislation, the same is part of the Central legislation and the same cannot be nullified by executive orders issued by the State Government. The essence of the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel, therefore, was that the State Government cannot take a stand that it is free to adopt the UGC Regulations in a manner it decides. 11. The learned Special Government Pleader as also the learned Standing Counsel for the University Grants Commission and the State Universities supported the decision of the learned Single Judge contending mainly that the questions raised in the writ petitions are covered by Ext.P5 judgment as affirmed by the Division Bench and the Apex Court. 12. We have examined the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on either side. 13. 12. We have examined the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on either side. 13. As regards the adoption and implementation of 2010 Regulations by the States, the petitioners are certainly right in contending that the same shall be implemented as a composite scheme in adherence to the terms and conditions laid down in Appendix I to the Regulations. They are also right in contending that Ext.P4 is a letter issued by the Government of India in the context of its decision to enhance the age of superannuation of teachers in the centrally funded institutions of higher education from 62 years to 65 years. But, a reading of Ext.P4 letter of the Government of India would indicate that the decision to de-link the condition of enhancing the age of superannuation for States to claim central financial assistance for implementing the 2010 Regulations, is one taken in deference to the powers given to the States to prescribe the conditions of service of its employees in terms of Article 309 of the Constitution. 14. Be that as it may, in light of the decision of the learned Single Judge, the moot question is as to whether the issue is covered by Ext.P5 judgment. One of the questions examined in Jagdish Prasad Sharma was whether the State is entitled to enact its own laws with regard to the service conditions of the teachers and other staff of the Universities and colleges within the State, and the said question was answered by the Apex Court in the affirmative with a clarification that the same will have effect, unless they are repugnant to the Central legislation. Paragraph 70 of the judgment in Jagdish Prasad Sharma dealing with the same read thus: “70. The authority of the Commission to frame regulations with regard to the service conditions of teachers in the Centrally-funded educational institutions is equally well-established. As has been very rightly done in the instant case, the acceptance of the Scheme in its composite form has been left to the discretion of the State Governments. The concern of the State Governments and their authorities that UGC has no authority to impose any conditions with regard to its educational institutions is clearly unfounded. As has been very rightly done in the instant case, the acceptance of the Scheme in its composite form has been left to the discretion of the State Governments. The concern of the State Governments and their authorities that UGC has no authority to impose any conditions with regard to its educational institutions is clearly unfounded. There is no doubt that the Regulations framed by UGC relate to Schedule VII List I Entry 66 to the Constitution, but it does not empower the Commission to alter any of the terms and conditions of the enactments by the States under Article 309 of the Constitution. Under List III Entry 25, the State is entitled to enact its own laws with regard to the service conditions of the teachers and other staff of the universities and colleges within the State and the same will have effect unless they are repugnant to any Central legislation.” (underline supplied) True, in the writ petitions culminated in Ext.P5 judgment, the claim made by the petitioners was that they should be permitted to continue in service till they attain the age of 65 years in tune with Ext.P2 decision of the Government of India. The case set out by them for the said purpose in the said cases was that Ext.P4 is only a decision by the Government of India to waive the demand for reimbursement of money already paid and it does not absolve the State Governments from implementing the scheme in the 2010 Regulations, including the provision therein as regards the age of superannuation as a composite one, once they choose to implement the same. But, a close reading of Ext.P5 judgment would indicate that the relief sought for by the petitioners in the said writ petitions was declined by this Court taking the stand that superannuation being an integral part of the service conditions of an employee in the service of the State Government, the same shall certainly be subject to the policy of the State Government and identical claims were turned down by the Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma, on the ground that a regulation framed by the UGC under the UGC Act which relate to Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution cannot alter the terms and conditions of an enactment by a State. The view aforesaid expressed by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment was accepted by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5037 of 2022 and Ext.P5 judgment was affirmed. Paragraphs 25 to 27 of the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5037 of 2022 read thus: “25. The Single Bench found, and in our view rightly, that there was no change in the law after the judgment of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra). 26. The Single Bench rightly noted that what was in issue before the Full Bench was Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act and the Regulations framed under Clause (g) of Section 26, which dealt with regulation and maintenance of standards and the regulation of facilities in the Universities. The Single Bench was of the view that the decision could have no application in the case of statutory age of retirement as determined by the State of Kerala under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The prescription of the age of superannuation of a faculty member could not affect the standards. 27. As found by the Single Bench of the High Court, the decision to issue the Circular dated 14th August 2012, withdrawing the regulation regarding enhancement of the age of superannuation, was taken by the Central Government, in consultation with the States and in deference to the powers given to the States to prescribe the service conditions of its employees, which would fall within the ambit of policy decision, undisputedly within the exclusive domain of the respective State Governments. The Single Bench held that the Policy of the State Government, which is evidenced by the statutory provisions mandating teachers of aided affiliated colleges to retire at the age of 56 years, and that of the Universities at the age of 60 years, has been crystalized by enactments under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.” The petitioners do not dispute the proposition of law referred to above, on the basis of which Ext.P5 judgment was rendered, as accepted by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5037 of 2022. If that be so, the issues raised in the writ petitions from which these appeals arise are covered by Ext.P5 judgment of this Court as affirmed by the Division Bench in Ext.P6 judgment as also the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5037 of 2022. If that be so, the issues raised in the writ petitions from which these appeals arise are covered by Ext.P5 judgment of this Court as affirmed by the Division Bench in Ext.P6 judgment as also the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5037 of 2022. The various decisions of the Apex Court relied on by the petitioners to contend that the UGC Regulations being a subordinate legislation under the Central legislation, the same has to be construed as part of the Central legislation itself and would, therefore, override all the State legislations in the field, in the circumstances, cannot have any application to the facts of the present cases. We take this view also for the reason that in light of Ext.P4 letter of the Government of India, which it is empowered to take under Section 20 of the UGC Act, the prescriptions in the UGC Regulations as regards the age of superannuation can only be understood subject to the provisions contained in the State enactments falling under Article 309 of the Constitution. In the said view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the appeals and are accordingly, dismissed.