ORDER ON BOARD : 1. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Librarian vide order dated 16.09.1978 issued by Principal, Government Lal Chakradhar Shah College, Ambagarh Chowki, Rajnandgaon. The petitioner’s service conditions were governed by MP/CG Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990. According to the said Rules, the petitioner being an Assistant Librarian is stated to be an employee under the Teaching Department. The University Grand Commission (UGC), New Delhi vide Circular dated 19.10.2006 (Annexure-P/6) informed the Eduation Secretary all the All States Government and Union Territories and the Registrar of All Universities and Deemed Universities that age of superannuation for Assistant Librarians/College Librarians and Assistant Directors for Physical Education/College Directors of Physical Education would henceforth be 62 years. In pursuance of said circular, the State has also issued an order on 30.07.2007 (Annexure- P/7) and extended the age of superannuation in respect of Sports Teacher/Librarian till 62 years. Thereafter, Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education, Govt. of India, New Delhi has issued a circular on 31.12.2008 and introduced Schemes for revised pay scale and other provisions. In the said circular, an observation has been made with regard to age of superannuation and it is held that “Whereas the enhancement of the age of superannuation for teachers engaged in class room teaching is intended to attract eligible persons to a career in teaching and to meet the shortage of teachers by retaining teachers in service for a longer period, and whereas there is no shortage in the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education, the increase in the age of superannuation from the present sixty two years shall not be available to the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education. In view of the above, the petitioner claimed that the age of retirement for Librarians, Assistant Librarians etc. is 62 years. However, all of a sudden, respondent No.4 has issued impugned letter/order on 12.11.2010 (Annexure-P/2) to the petitioner retiring her with effect from 30.06.2011 i.e. at 60 years of age. Hence, this petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- “(i) it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to issuance of impugned letter dated 07.05.2011 and order dated 12.11.2010 retiring the petitioner w.e.f. 30.06.2011, from the respondents for its kind perusal. Hence, this petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- “(i) it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to issuance of impugned letter dated 07.05.2011 and order dated 12.11.2010 retiring the petitioner w.e.f. 30.06.2011, from the respondents for its kind perusal. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned letter dated 07.05.2011 and order dated 12.11.2010 by declaring the same to be illegal and inoperative in law. (iii) This Hon’ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding the respondents not to retire the petitioner w.e.f. 30.06.2011 at the age of 60 years treating the petitioner as Class-III category employee. (iv) Any other relief/reliefs, which Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 12.11.2010, whereby, the petitioner was superannuated with effect from 30.06.2011 is bad in law and arbitrary in nature as UGC in specific and laudable terms stated the age of superannuation of Assistant Librarian to be 62 years. He submits that only on the basis of subsequent circular dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure-P/8), the Authorities did not consider the case of present petitioner for further enhancement of age of superannuation and made difference between the teachers engaged in class room and Librarians, in case there is no shortage of the aforesaid posts. However, it is explicit from the said circular that standard age of superannuation of Librarian and Directors of Physical Education is 62 years. Therefore, this petition may be allowed and consequential benefits be granted to the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the aforesaid submission. He submits that service of the petitioner was treated as Class-III (Ministerial) employee and she continued on the said post till 30.06.2011 which is the date of her superannuation. He next submits that the petitioner, during her services, never possessed the qualification for being categorized as a teaching department employee. Therefore, the impugned order showing the age of superannuation of the petitioner on 30.06.2011 upon attaining the age of 60 years is not suffering from infirmity and does not call for interference by this Court. 4. He next submits that the petitioner, during her services, never possessed the qualification for being categorized as a teaching department employee. Therefore, the impugned order showing the age of superannuation of the petitioner on 30.06.2011 upon attaining the age of 60 years is not suffering from infirmity and does not call for interference by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Dr. J. Vijayan & Ors Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 958 categorically held that the State Government is at liberty to frame its own laws relating to education in the State and is not bound to accept or follow the Regulations framed by UGC. 6. In the present case also, the State vide its order dated 30.07.2007 (Annexure-P/7) extended the age of superannuation only in respect of Sports Officer and Librarian till 62 years, whereas, the petitioner till her superannuation was holding the post of Assistant Librarian. It is well established law that as a matter of fact the courts should be slow in interfering with matters of government policy except where it is shown that the decision is unfair, malafide or contrary to any statutory directions. Therefore, there will be no justification if the Court interfere with the policy of the Government and it is matter of policy of the Government and it is not for the courts to interfere with such policy decisions of the Government. Normally, the courts should not dictate the decision of the statutory authority in exercise of its discretion and formulation of its policies. There is no obligation imposed upon the Government to equate Librarian with the Assistant Librarian or to treat the library staff as a teaching staff. 7. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of State of Karnataka Vs. C. K. Pattamashetty and another, (2004) 6 SCC 685 dealt with similar issue, where, respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Librarian in Bangalore University. He had filed writ petition before the Karnataka High Court for issuance of direction to the University to treat him as a Lecturer. 7. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of State of Karnataka Vs. C. K. Pattamashetty and another, (2004) 6 SCC 685 dealt with similar issue, where, respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Librarian in Bangalore University. He had filed writ petition before the Karnataka High Court for issuance of direction to the University to treat him as a Lecturer. Though the writ petition was dismissed, however, on writ appeal preferred by the respondent, the Divisions Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowed the same and held that as the appellant had been performing teaching job, he would be treated as the teacher for all practical purposes. When the matter was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was categorically observed that if the respondent herein was not appointed as a member of the teaching staff by the University then directing the University to treat the post held by him to be a teaching staff was unwarranted. It was also held that if the respondent had undertaken the teaching work voluntarily knowing fully well that he would not be entitled to have any financial gain thereby, he cannot be granted the same benefits only because he undertook teaching job pursuant thereto. Thus, he could not be given any financial benefit of teacher, including the benefit of age of superannuation. 8. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. J. Vijayan (Supra) while referring paragraph 72 of judgment of its Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Bihar, (2013) 8 SCC 633 made observation with regard to liberty of the State Government while framing the laws, which would be relevant to reproduce hereunder:- “30. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants referred to paragraphs 68 and 72 of the judgment of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma (Supra) set out herein-below :- “68. *** *** 72. As far as the States of Kerala and U.P. are concerned, they have their own problems which are localised and stand on a different footing from the other States, none of whom who appear to have the same problem. 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 UGC. 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 UGC. It is only natural that if they wish to adopt the Regulations framed by the Commission under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, the States will have to abide by the conditions as laid down by the Commission.” 31. It is not understood how those paragraphs are of assistance to the Appellant. There is no finding in paragraph 68, but only discussion of facts, which led to the decision, and paragraph 72 is clearly against the Appellants. This Court unequivocally held that the State was not bound to accept or follow the UGC Regulations.” 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court does not find any merit in submission of the petitioner. The State has issued an order for extension of age of superannuation only in respect of Sports Officer and Librarian and the petitioner being Assistant Librarian cannot be equated with teaching staff to get benefit of age of superannuation and its consequential benefits. 10. For the forgoing, this Court does not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to cost(s).