ORDER : (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ., Shubha Mehta, J.) Heard on applications (I.A. No. 1/2023 & 3/2023) for vacation of stay order dated 13.04.2023 passed by this Court. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2-applicant-Rajasthan Technical University as also learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1-applicant-State, placing reliance on the provisions contained in Section 31 of the Rajasthan Technical University Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTU Act, 2006'), argued that the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to continue in service until they attain the age of 65 years is misconceived in law. They would submit that challenge to the validity of Section 31 of the RTU Act, 2006 and prayer for direction to comply with the All India Council for Technical Education Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff such as Library, Physical Education and Training & Placement Personnel in Technical Institutions and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Technical Education-(Degree) Regulation, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the AICTE Regulation of 2019') is based on completely misconceived legal premise that the age of retirement prescribed in the AICTE Regulation of 2019 will have primacy over the legislative scheme of statutory provisions contained in Section 31 of the RTU Act, 2006. They would submit that the statutes, which have been framed in exercise of the powers under the Act, clearly provide that the retirement age as specified in the AICTE Regulation of 2019 would be applicable only if approved by the State Government, renders the applicability of the Regulation of 2019 subject to the approval of the State Government. The service conditions were determined by the State legislature while enacting the RTU Act, 2006. The competence of the State legislature to determine the terms and conditions of services flows from Entry 25 of List III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and there is no repugnancy with the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the AICTE Act of 1987') and the regulations framed thereunder. The competence of the State legislature to determine the terms and conditions of services flows from Entry 25 of List III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and there is no repugnancy with the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the AICTE Act of 1987') and the regulations framed thereunder. Further submission of learned Senior Counsel as also learned Additional Advocate General is that it is only in the absence of legislation by the State legislature or the service rules framed by the Governor in exercise of its legislative powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India that the AICTE Regulation of 2019, prescribing the age of retirement, would be effective and operative. Rajasthan Technical University is a State university, which is funded and controlled by the Government of Rajasthan. In support of aforesaid contentions, learned Senior Counsel as also learned Additional Advocate General have relied upon several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court as also other High Courts in the cases of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Another v. Bikartan Das & Others, Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Others v. Union of India & Others, Jagdish Prasad Sharma & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, Dr. J. Vijayan & Others v. The State of Kerala & Others, Anil Kumar Vitthal Shete & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Another, B. Bharat Kumar & Others v. Osmania University & Others, State of U.P. & Another v. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. & Another and Dalpat Singh Rajpurohit v. State of Rajasthan & Others.[(1) Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Another v. Bikartan Das & Others (Civil Appeal No. 3339 of 2023 decided on 16.08.2023).] [(2) Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Others v. Union of India & Others (2021) 6 SCC 568 .] [(3) Jagdish Prasad Sharma & Others v. State of Bihar & Others (2013) 8 SCC 633 .] [(4) Dr. J. Vijayan & Others v. The State of Kerala & Others (Civil Appeal No. 5037 of 2022 decided on 02.08.2022).] [(5) Anil Kumar Vitthal Shete & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Another (2006) 12 SCC 148 .] [(6) B. Bharat Kumar & Others v. Osmania University & Others (2007) 11 SCC 58 .] [(7) State of U.P. & Another v. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. & Another (1991) 4 SCC 139 .] [(8) Dalpat Singh Rajpurohit v. State of Rajasthan & Others (D.B. Civil Reference No. 1 of 2018 decided by this Court on 09.01.2019).] 3. Learned Senior Counsel as also learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that allowing the petitioners to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation as provided by the Act of legislature and the statute would amount to giving effect and force to the AICTE Regulation of 2019 which does not apply in the present case. Insofar as grant of interim order/relief is concerned, relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Sureme Court in the cases of Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine v. Dr. Salma Khatoon & Others,[Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine v. Dr. Salma Khatoon & Others (Civil Appeal No. 2476-2478 of 2020 decided on 01.06.2020).] and Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Another v. Bikartan Das & Others (supra), it has been submitted that as the petitioners can be monetarily compensated in the event the writ petition is allowed, allowing the petitioners to continue beyond the age of superannuation as fixed by the University by way of interim order would virtually amount to granting final relief at the interim stage. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have challenged the validity of Section 31 of the RTU Act, 2006 mainly on the ground that the legislative scheme under the State enactment and the statute framed by the University are in direct conflict with the AICTE Regulation of 2019 framed in exercise of statutory powers under the AICTE Act of 1987, a central legislation. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that it has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judicial pronouncements that in the event of such a conflict, the regulations framed by the AICTE in exercise of powers conferred under central legislation will hold the field as also applicable and to that extent, the laws/rules framed by the State or the University will be of no effect. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that Section 31 of the RTU Act, 2006 clearly provides that subject to any provision in the Statutes to the contrary or any directions or policy of the State Government in this regard, all the employees of the University ordinarily retire from service upon attaining the age of 60 years. However, the statute framed by the University in exercise of its powers under the RTU Act, 2006 clearly provides that in the matter of determination of the age of retirement, the provisions of the AICTE Regulation of 2019 would be applicable as approved by the State Government. As the statutes are approved by the State Government itself, it implies that the retirement age as specified by the AICTE Regulation of 2019 will hold the field. Therefore, present is not a case, where the petitioners are praying for interim relief in violation of any law, but the prayer for interim relief is towards enforcement of the provisions contained in the AICTE Regulation of 2019 providing for higher age of retirement. As regards conflict between the AICTE Regulation of 2019 framed under the AICTE Act of 1987 and the provisions contained in Section 31 of the RTU Act, 2006, the AICTE Regulation of 2019 will have the primacy, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust & Others v. All India Council for Technical Education & Others,[Parshvanath Charitable Trust & Others v. All India Council for Technical Education & Others (2013) 3 SCC 385 .] wherein it has been held that where both Parliament and State Legislature have the power to legislate, the Central Act shall take precedence in the matters which are covered by such legislation and the State enactments shall pave way for such legislations to the extent they are in conflict or repugnant. All India Council for Technical Education is the authority constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining operational standards and judging the infrastructure and facilities available for imparting professional education. Therefore, any provision, policy, guideline of the State which is in conflict with the Central statute or the AICTE Regulation of 2019, to that extent, the same shall be void and inoperative in law. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that several High Courts including Madras High Court, Karnataka High Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court have taken consistent view that in case of conflict between the State enactments, rules, policies and the provisions contained in the AICTE Regulation of 2019, the AICTE Regulation of 2019 shall prevail. 5. On prima facie considerations, we find that the petitioners seek to assail the validity of Section 31 of the RTU Act, 2006 mainly on the ground that insofar as prescription of the age of retirement is concerned, the regulations framed by the AICTE would have primacy over the State enactment or any other rule framed by the State. Several decisions, which have been cited at the Bar by learned Senior Counsels as also learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the parties raise serious issue of determination with reference to the legislative competence of the Central and the State Legislatures with respect to their respective field of legislation enumerated in various lists appended to Seventh Schedule. Indeed, there are various decisions touching upon the issue raised in this petition which require deeper consideration. 6. It appears that several writ petitions, raising identical issue, have already been filed and interim orders have been passed by this Court in such several cases. Interim order passed by this Court in the present case also indicates that this Court was inclined to grant interim relief to the petitioners mainly on the basis that validity of the provisions has already been challenged before Principal seat of this Court at Jodhpur in Sunil Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 932/2023) as also Dr. Murtaza Ali Saloda v. State of Rajasthan & Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3106/2023). However, this Court reserved the right of the respondents to move application for vacating stay, if required. 7. Murtaza Ali Saloda v. State of Rajasthan & Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3106/2023). However, this Court reserved the right of the respondents to move application for vacating stay, if required. 7. On the contentious issue as to whether the provisions with regard to the age of retirement as contained in the AICTE Regulation of 2019 would have primacy over the State legislation and subsidiary legislation in the form of statute framed by the University or any other rule framed by the State in exercise of its rule making power or the rules framed by the Governor in exercise of its powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Parshvanath Charitable Trust & Others v. All India Council for Technical Education & Others(supra), Dr. Professor Rajendra Chaudhary & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others,[Dr. Professor Rajendra Chaudhary & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (2020) 13 SCC 278 .], State of T.N. & Another v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute & Others,[State of T.N. & Another v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute & Others (1995) 4 SCC 104 ], SK. Nausad Rahaman & Others v. Union of India & Others, [SK. Nausad Rahaman & Others v. Union of India & Others (2022) 12 SCC 1 ] and Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Others,[Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Others 2022 SCC Online SC 1473] has authoritatively held that in case of conflict, the Regulations of the AICTE will prevail over the State law. Therefore, the petitioners have made out an arguable case. 8. The next question which arises for consideration is that even if a strong prima facie case is made out, whether the interim order should be continued in favour of the petitioners. In the case of Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine v. Dr. Salma Khatoon & Others (supra), Respondent No. 1 therein moved the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming that she is entitled to higher age of superannuation of General Duty Medical Officers and Specialists working in the Central Government and its allied institutions even though the respondent therein was a Research Officer. Original application filed before the Tribunal was dismissed. Salma Khatoon & Others (supra), Respondent No. 1 therein moved the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming that she is entitled to higher age of superannuation of General Duty Medical Officers and Specialists working in the Central Government and its allied institutions even though the respondent therein was a Research Officer. Original application filed before the Tribunal was dismissed. When writ petition was filed before the High Court of Delhi, interim order was passed on the basis of the statement of Respondent No. 1 therein (petitioner before the High Court) that she was continuing in service. Another interim order was passed by the High Court of Delhi directing that Respondent No. 1 therein (petitioner before the High Court) shall be paid salary for the period for which work has been performed beyond the age of 60 years, subject to such further orders as may be passed at the time of hearing of the petition. The fundamental objection against the direction of the High Court that though Respondent No. 1-Dr. Salma Khatoon had failed before the Tribunal, by granting interim order, the High Court had virtually allowed the writ petition, was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was held that if Respondent No. 1 therein were to ultimately succeed before the High Court in the matter of challenge to the order passed by the Tribunal, necessary consequences would follow. It was pertinently observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the interim orders of the High Court virtually amounted to grant of final relief and ought not to have been passed. On such considerations, interim orders were vacated. 9. In another decision in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Another v. Bikartan Das & Others (supra), similar issue arose for consideration. Respondent No. 1 therein claimed that he is entitled to benefit of enhancement of the age of retirement from 60 years to 65 years as applicable to AYUSH doctors working under the Ministry of AYUSH. Original application filed by Respondent No. 1 therein before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack was dismissed by the Tribunal against which writ petition was preferred by Respondent No. 1 therein before the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the Tribunal. Original application filed by Respondent No. 1 therein before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack was dismissed by the Tribunal against which writ petition was preferred by Respondent No. 1 therein before the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the Tribunal. Order passed by the High Court was assailed by Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences by filing appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order passed by the High Court was set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against grant of interim relief extending the period of service beyond the age of superannuation. On facts, it was found that even though the employee was to retire in 2018, yet he continued in service till 2021. It was only when the Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed the operation of the order passed by the High Court, services of the employee came to an end. In such background, it was observed that the Court or the Tribunal should be slow and circumspect in granting interim relief for continuation in service unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated. But if the employee fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely causing injustice to his immediate junior. 10. Considering the aforesaid two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine v. Dr. But if the employee fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely causing injustice to his immediate junior. 10. Considering the aforesaid two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine v. Dr. Salma Khatoon & Others (supra) and Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Another v. Bikartan Das & Others (supra), even though we find that an arguable case is made out and the matter is required to be heard finally as the petitioners have placed heavy reliance upon several decisions to support their case that in case of conflict between the regulations of the AICTE and State enactments, rules, bye-laws, Regulations of the AICTE would take precedence, taking into consideration that in the event of success, the petitioners can be suitably compensated and would be entitled to the monetary benefits and all other benefits to which they may be entitled to if ultimately it is held that the age of retirement prescribed by the AICTE Regulation of 2019 will prevail, we are not inclined to continue the interim order passed by this Court as that may amount to granting final relief. Indeed, the aforesaid two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court highlight the aspect that allowing an employee to continue beyond the age of retirement, by way of an interim order, would virtually amount to granting final relief at interim stage. 11. In view of above, applications (I.A. No. 1/2023 & 3/2023) for vacation of interim order dated 13.04.2023 are allowed. Interim order dated 13.04.2023 is vacated. It is, however, made clear that retirement of the petitioners would be subject to final outcome of the writ petition. 12. Further, taking into consideration the various grounds urged in the writ petition, we are inclined to expedite hearing of this writ petition. List this writ petition for final hearing in the month of July, 2024.