JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners are teachers working in aided polytechnic colleges. They are due to retire from service on attaining the age of 56 years. They have preferred these writ petitions seeking a declaration that they are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 65 years, since the All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE for short) Regulations mandate such continuance. Directions are also sought for to the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue in service on the basis of the regulations. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.14545/2022 joined the respondent polytechnic college on 13.08.1987 and was promoted to the post of Head of the Department (Civil Engineering) on 01.06.2012, whereas the petitioner in W.P(C).No.30088/22 is presently working as a Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in the college. The grievance of the petitioners is that they will be forced to retire from service at the age of 56 years instead of 65 years, as stipulated under the AICTE. It is contended that AICTE, by Exhibit P1 notification has mandated that the age of superannuation of teachers in technical institutions throughout the country shall be 65 years. It is further contended that even though by Exhibit P2 Government Order dated 20.02.2014, Exhibit P1 regulations were implemented in diploma level technical institutions in Kerala, by sub clause (iii) of Clause X of Exhibit P2 Government Order, the age of superannuation was fixed as applicable to State Government employees. It is stated that the said clause is illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that Ext.P3 revised regulations were notified by AICTE. In pursuance of Ext.P3 regulations Ext.P4 Government order was also passed stating that the revised AICTE pay is applicable to academic staff of Government as well as Polytechnic colleges, who are qualified as per AICTE norms. It is thus contended that Ext.P2 Government order has become infructuous and thus the petitioners will retire from service only on attaining the age of 65 years. It is contended that Exhibit P4 order does not stipulate the age of superannuation, but G.O.dated 03.07.2022 was issued during the pendency of W.P(C) No.14545/22 stating the age of superannuation would be as applicable to State Government employees. It is contended that Exhibit P4 order does not stipulate the age of superannuation, but G.O.dated 03.07.2022 was issued during the pendency of W.P(C) No.14545/22 stating the age of superannuation would be as applicable to State Government employees. The said Government Order is produced as Exhibit P8 in W.P.(C).No.30088/2022 and is also subjected to a challenge in the said writ petition. It is contended that since AICTE Act was enacted and regulations were made to maintain standards of technical education throughout the country, the provisions of KSR are no longer applicable to the petitioners. It is contended that since there is a conflict between the Rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution and Regulation made under the AICTE Act, the provisions of AICTE Act will prevail under Article 254 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that several State Governments have implemented the AICTE regulations and also enhanced the age of superannuation and that the petitioners had also preferred a representation seeking enhancement of age of superannuation. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others v.Kailash Nath etc. [1989 AIR SC 558 and the Bench decisions of this Court in OP(KAT) No.133 of 2019 and W.A.No.2706 of 2009. Reliance is also placed on the decisions in State of Tamil Nadu and another v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and others [ (1995) 4 SCC 104 ], Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government [ AIR 2000 SC 1614 ], Parshavanath Charitable Trust and others v. AICTE and others [ (2013) 3 SCC 385 ], Amrutraj Pratabji Vyas v. Hind Sewa Mandal Kusavalal [2018 MHLJ (2) 615] and Pramod v. State of Maharashtra [(2016) 14 SCC 505]. 4. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the Government stating that as per Rule 60(a) of Part I KSR, date of compulsory retirement of an officer shall take effect from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 56 years. An employee can be retained in service thereafter only with the sanction of the Government in public interest and for reasons to be recorded in writing. An employee can be retained in service thereafter only with the sanction of the Government in public interest and for reasons to be recorded in writing. It is submitted that the AICTE Act is enacted “to provide for the establishment of an All India Council for Technical Education with a view to the proper planning and co-ordinated 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.” It is the duty of the council to take steps for ensuring co-ordinated and integrated development of technical and management education and maintenance of standards of such education. However, the powers of the council do not extend to the fixing of service conditions or the age of superannuation of employees including teachers and that such matters are left to the discretion and falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the State Government concerned. It is further contended that the decisions of this Court in Mathai M.M.v. Elizabeth Xavier and others [ 2011 (2) KHC 387 ] and Abraham J. Puthumana and others v. State of Kerala and others [ 2019 KHC 321 ] cover the issue and that the contentions have already been considered in extenso. It is contended that the power of the AICTE is only with regard to the coordination and determination of standards in technical education and that the said power cannot extend to other matters in the field of education or service conditions of the employees and teachers. The decision of the Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma and others v. State of Bihar and others [ (2013) 8 SCC 633 ] is also relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General. 5. Article 246 provides that the Parliament has the exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule. Article 246(2) states that notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament and subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any state also have the power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh schedule (concurrent list). Article 246(2) states that notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament and subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any state also have the power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh schedule (concurrent list). Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh schedule (State list). Article 248 provides that the Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent list or the State list. Article 249 also provides power to the Parliament to legislate with respect to a matter in the State list in national interest. Article 254 provides that if any provision of a law made by a Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by the Parliament, which the Parliament is competent to enact or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent list, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by the Parliament whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Article 254(2) provides that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to a matter enumerated in the Concurrent list contains any provision repugnant to provisions of an earlier law made by the Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter then the law so made by the Legislature of the State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State. Provided that the Parliament can enact any law adding to amending, varying or repelling the law so made by the legislature. 6. Entry 25 of List III of Seventh Schedule (Concurrent list) reads as follows:- “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.” 7. 6. Entry 25 of List III of Seventh Schedule (Concurrent list) reads as follows:- “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.” 7. Entry 66 in List I reads as follows:- “Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.” 8. It is further pertinent to note that State Public Services and State Pensions, that is to say, pensions payable by the State or out of the consolidated fund of the State, are matters included at Entry 41 and 42 respectively of List II (State list). 9. The contention of the petitioners is that since the coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions is included at Entry 66 of the Union list and since the AICTE Act has been enacted by the Parliament in exercise of its legislative power under Article 246(1) read with Entry 66 of List I, Union list, the Regulations framed by the AICTE under the said Act would prevail over any State law with regard to the age of superannuation as provided by the State. It is contended that the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu and another v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and others [ (1995) 4 SCC 104 ] held that the expression co-ordination in Entry 66 means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development and it includes action, not only for removal of disparities in standards, but also preventing the occurrence of such disparity. Relying on Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government [ AIR 2000 SC 1614 ], Parshavanath Charitable Trust and others v. AICTE and others [ (2013) 3 SCC 385 ] and Amrutraj Pratabji Vyas v. Hind Sewa Mandal Kusavalal [2018 MHLJ (2) 615], it is contended that the AICTE, being empowered to issue the regulations in respect to co-ordination of standards in scientific and technical institutions, the regulations framed by the AICTE for the purpose of such co-ordination would be fully binding on the state and any State law governing the age of retirement would have to give way to AICTE regulations which have the protection of Entry 66 of List 1. The learned counsel would also place reliance on Pramod v. State of Maharashtra [(2016) 14 SCC 505] to contend that the regulations of AICTE being statutory, unless these have been superseded or annulled by a competent authority, the appellant's age of superannuation stood extended upto 65 years. 10.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents places reliance on the decisions rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Abraham J. Puthumana and others v. State of Kerala and others [ 2019 KHC 321 ]. The issue raised therein was with regard to the retirement age of teachers of Universities and institutions governed by the UGC regulations. The writ petitioners were the Registrar of Examinations and Finance Officers in the Mahatma Gandhi, Calicut and Kannur Universities. The University Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019 was promulgated on 6.3.2019, reducing the age of retirement to 56 years at par with Government servants. It was contended that the Government having adopted the UGC regulations of 1998, which provides for retirement age of 60 years, there was no power in the State Government to have promulgated an ordinance reducing the said age. After examining the provisions of 1998 Regulations as well as the 2010 Regulations and relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma and others v. State of Bihar and others [ (2013) 8 SCC 633 ] and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Dr.J.Vijayan and others v.State of Kerala and others [W.A.No.734/2016 and WA.No.854 of 2016], this Court held that the State law prescribing age of retirement of teachers are framed in exercise of the power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It was held that though the regulation framed by the UGC relate to Entry 66 of List I of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution there is no power in the UGC to alter the terms and conditions of enactments by the States under Article 309 of the Constitution. It was further held that under Entry 25 of List III, the State is empowered to enact its own laws with regard to service conditions of teachers and other staffs of Universities and colleges within the State and that the same will have effect unless they are repugnant to any central legislation. It was further held that under Entry 25 of List III, the State is empowered to enact its own laws with regard to service conditions of teachers and other staffs of Universities and colleges within the State and that the same will have effect unless they are repugnant to any central legislation. It was further held that the age of retirement is a policy matter within the exclusive premise of the State and that there is absolutely no compulsion on the State to accept a non-mandatory provision in the guidelines with regard to retirement age. 11. Reliance is also placed on the decision reported in Mathai M.M.v. Elizabeth Xavier and others [ 2011 (2) KHC 387 ] wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that even if Entry 66 of List I empowers the Parliament to fix retirement age uniformly for all colleges affiliated to Universities in India, the Parliament had not made any law for the country as a whole . It was further held that due to Entry 25 in List III except for Entry 63, 64,65 and 66 in List I, the State is well within its power to make legislation in all matters pertaining to education including service conditions of teaching staff. It was therefore found that there is no violation of Article 245(1) in the State Government refusing to increase the retirement age of University teachers. 12. In OP(KAT) No.542/2019 a Division Bench of this Court considered whether the method of appointment or the source of appointment is a mandatory provision of the AICTE Regulations. Relying on the language of Entry 66 in List I of the Seventh Schedule, it was held that the 2019 AICTE Regulations, in so far as they pertain to the qualification and method of appointment of teachers in polytechnic is mandatory. However, the decision in Jagadish Prasad Sharma was specifically referred to and it was clarified that the question considered by the Supreme Court was whether a legislation relatable to Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution could tinker with the terms and conditions of enactments by the State under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It was held that Jagadish Prasad Sharma was authority on the point that the provisions of the State law with regard to age of retirement would prevail over UGC regulations even if the age of retirement is provided in such regulations. The decision in O.P.(KAT) No.133/2019 and connected cases is also referred to wherein the specific case of qualifications required for the post of Assistant Professor (Associate Professor), Professors and Principals in the Government Engineering Colleges in the State was considered. It was held by the Division Bench that the rules framed by the State under Article 309 of the Constitution read with provisions of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 will be subject to the Regulations framed by the AICTE regarding the qualifications, method of appointment etc. and the Rules framed by the State would, to the extent it is repugnant to the Central Act/Regulations be void and in operative. However, with regard to other matters which do not fall under “coordination and determination of standards of technical education”, the Special Rules or the rules framed by the State under Article 309 of the Constitution would prevail. W.A.No.2706 of 2009 and connected cases dealt with the amendment to the Special Rules for the Kerala Technical Education Services Rules, 2010 by inserting Rule 6A providing for relaxation of educational qualifications. The Division Bench held that the qualifications for appointment of teachers in polytechnics is a matter which specifically relates to the standards of technical education and that there can be no fixation of qualifications by the State Government below the benchmark indicated by the AICTE. It was in the said circumstances that the said amended provision was struck down. 13. Having considered the contentions advanced on all sides, I notice that Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution specifically provides for co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institution as a Union subject. The Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma's case (supra) held that education, now being a List III subject, the State Government is at liberty to frame its own laws relating to education in the State and is not, therefore, bound to accept or follow the regulations framed by the UGC. The Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma's case (supra) held that education, now being a List III subject, the State Government is at liberty to frame its own laws relating to education in the State and is not, therefore, bound to accept or follow the regulations framed by the UGC. It was further held that there is no ambiguity that the final decision to enhance the age of superannuation of teachers within a particular state would be of that State itself. The right of the Commission to frame regulations having the force of law is admitted. However, the State Governments are also entitled to legislate with matters relating to education under Entry 25 of List III. So long as the State legislation did not encroach upon jurisdiction of Parliament, the State legislation obviously have primacy over any other law. If there was any legislation enacted by the Central Government under Entry 25, List III, both would have to be treated on a par with each other. In the absence of any such legislation by the Central Government under Entry 25 List III, the regulation framed by way of delegated legislature has to yield to the plenary jurisdiction of the State Government under Entry 25 List III. 14. In the instant case also, it is an admitted fact that the conditions prescribed in the AICTE regulations with regard to all matters concerning the co-ordination and determination of standards of technical education have been complied with by the State. The question would, therefore, only be whether the prescriptions of a uniform retirement age comes within the ambit of co-ordination and determination of standards of education. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on several decisions of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as well as the High Court of Maharashtra, in view of the fact that the question has been specifically considered by Division Benches of this Court and since there are no binding decisions of the Apex Court specifically on the point, I am bound by the judgments of this Court. The Division Bench has specifically considered whether the prescription of age of retirement would fall within the scope of “co-ordination and determination of standards of education” and has specifically held that it would not . The Division Bench has specifically considered whether the prescription of age of retirement would fall within the scope of “co-ordination and determination of standards of education” and has specifically held that it would not . It is found that the fixing of retirement age of teachers is the prerogative of the State Government and a policy decision which the State has to adopt taking note of the prevailing factual situations available in the State. I notice that the AICTE Regulations also proceed on the basis of lack of qualified hands being available for appointment as teachers. The State is on record stating that there is absolutely no such dearth in the State of Kerala and that it would not be in the interest of maintaining standards of education to deny opportunity to fully qualified youngsters to be appointed as teachers. In the above factual situation, I am of the opinion that the prayers, as sought for, in the writ petitions cannot be granted. The writ petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed.