JUDGMENT : (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 5 and Shri Girjesh Tripathi, learned Standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was rendering his services before the respondent no. 3 as an assistant teacher and as per the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which has been regulated with the different amendment introduced by the State Government of U.P. from time to time the age of superannuation pertaining to the petitioner is 62 years, whereas he has been compelled to retire at the age of 60 years only. Having been aggrieved with the notice/order of retirement dated 10.12.2008 and the same is under challenge in the instant petition. 3. For substantiating the claim of the petitioner, the provisions of the regulation as well as the extent rules applicable over the petitioner has relied upon which is ensured by the legislation for each and every teacher imparting in the same services before the different institution recognized by the competent authority i.e. respondent no. 2. 4. Considering the provisions applicable over the petitioner and his specific letter dated 09.04.2009 has been issued by the respondent no. 2 in favour of respondent no. 3 and it has been clarified that the age of superannuation for the assistant teacher has already been declared through Government Order dated 27.02.2004 is 62 years and as such the committee of management of Saint Joseph's High School, Mahoba is hereby requested to ensure the retirement of the petitioner and after completion of the 62 years and the same has been appended along with the petition as Annexure No. 8. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 5 vehementally opposed the prayer as made in the petition on the ground that the committee of management is having the separate Rules in respect of the retirement of the assistant teacher were engaged in the institution on the term and condition which is admissible and applicable both of them, the term and condition is directly governed with the scheme of administration as adopted by the respondent no. 3 and the same has been approved by the Deputy Director Education (Madhyamik), Jhansi Division, District - Jhansi. 6. 3 and the same has been approved by the Deputy Director Education (Madhyamik), Jhansi Division, District - Jhansi. 6. After having the rival contention has raised by the learned counsels for the respective parties along with the perusal of the letter of administration submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of filing the rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit preferred by the respondent no. 3 and 5 and the same has not been disputed at any point of time since the document appended as Annexure No. 2 to the rejoinder affidavit, wherein it is crystal clearly mentioned in the scheme of administration of the institution i.e. respondent nos. 3 and 5 at para 22 (iii) which is reproduced herein-below: ^^3- fo|ky; ds deZpkfj;ksa dk lsok dh ,DV rFkk jsX;qys'kUl ls fu/kkZfjr gksaxsA ;fn lsok ds fy, dksbZ le>kSrk gksxk] rks ;g mUgha va'k esa ekU; gksxk ftl va'k esa ,DV rFkk jsX;qys'kUl ds Áko/kkuksa ds vuqdwy gksxkA** 7. The definition of act and regulation is well defined under the clause 3 of the scheme of administration available under the definitions, Act means Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Regulation, means all the Rules, instructions as well as Government Orders in shape of Act issued by Department of Education, State Government of U.P. from time to time. 8. The scheme of administration adopted by the respondent nos. 3 and 5 is such explanatory in respect of every affairs which is applicable over each and every employee of the institution and the same shall be governed with the strict provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 so far as the Government Orders and different other statutory provisions are concerned all shall be equally applicable over each and every employee irrespective of the institution governed under the minority in Status. The sole ground is relied by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 5 that the institution is minority and as such the connecting laws as well as Rules pertaining to the State of U.P. shall not be applicable is contrary to the scheme of administration itself. Once the institution irrespective of its status specially a mentioned in the petition as minority once recognized by the State Government the entire rules, provision as well as Government Orders shall be applicable in strict in the two letter and separate by the institution which is mandatory in nature. Once the institution irrespective of its status specially a mentioned in the petition as minority once recognized by the State Government the entire rules, provision as well as Government Orders shall be applicable in strict in the two letter and separate by the institution which is mandatory in nature. 9. The Eleven Judges Bench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2002 (8) SCC 481 , had again occasion to consider the scope and ambit of Article 30 of the Constitution. The Apex Court in the said case has framed various questions. One of the questions, 5(c) which is relevant in the present case was also framed. It is useful to quote paragraphs 136, 137 and also paragraph 161 in which the Answer to question 5(c) is given, which are as under: "136. Decisions of this Court have held that the right to administer does not include the right to maladminister. It has also been held that the right to administer is not absolute, but must be subject to reasonable regulations for the benefit of the institutions as the vehicle of education, consistent with national interest. General laws of the land applicable to all persons have been held to be applicable to the minority institutions also --for example, laws relating to taxation, sanitation, social welfare, economic regulation, public order and morality. 137. It follows from the aforesaid decisions that even though the words of Article 30(1) are unqualified, this Court has held that at least certain other laws of the land pertaining to health, morality and standards of education apply. The right under Article 30(1) has, therefore, not been held to be absolute or above other provisions of the law, and we reiterate the same. By the same analogy, there is no reason why regulations or conditions concerning, generally, the welfare of students and teachers should not be made applicable in order to provide a proper academic atmosphere, as such provisions do not in any way interfere with the right of administration or management under Article 30(1). 161. The essence of secularism in India is the recognition and preservation of the different types of people, with diverse languages and different beliefs, and placing them together so as to form a whole and united India. 161. The essence of secularism in India is the recognition and preservation of the different types of people, with diverse languages and different beliefs, and placing them together so as to form a whole and united India. Articles 29 and 30 do not more than seek to preserve the differences that exist, and at the same time, unite the people to form one strong nation." 10. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances as well as by intensive reading of the scheme of administration, the ground as taken up by the as learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 5 is not tenable in the eye of law and as such the notice/order of retirement dated 10.12.2008 issued by respondent no. 3 is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. The writ petition is hereby allowed with direction to the respondent nos. 3 and 5 to treat the petitioner retired after attaining the age of 62 years and ensure the payment along with the backwages, admissible incrimants thereupon within 15 days from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order produced before them. Retiral benefits along with the payment of delayed interest admissible to the rate of the current lending rate of the nationalized Bank will be admissible to the petitioner.