ORDER : Heard Mr. F. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that a direction should be issued to the respondent authorities, to increase the retirement age of the petitioner from 60 years to 65 years and to reinstate the petitioner in service. 2. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner was serving as a Principal in Paschim Barigog Anchalik Mahavidyalaya, Baranghati. He submits that the said college was a private college affiliated with the Gauhati University. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the Cabinet had taken a decision on 19.09.2012, to raise the age of retirement of all Professors of educational institutions, including medical colleges, from 60 years to 65 years. Accordingly, the petitioner’s retirement age should have been extended to 65 years. However, he was made to retire on 24.10.2019, on attaining the age of 60 years. 4. As the petitioner’s representation to the authorities for extension of his retirement age had not been decided, the petitioner filed WP(C) 6887/2019. WP(C) 6887/2019 was disposed of, vide order dated 13.09.2019, by giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the authorities, regarding his claim for enhancement of the age of superannuation, which was to be decided by the authorities concerned. 5. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 30.09.2019, in compliance of the order dated 13.09.2019 passed WP(C) 6887/2019, which was rejected by the respondents, vide letter dated 24.10.2019, issued by the Director of Higher Education, Assam. 6. The contents of the letter dated 24.10.2019 issued by the Director of Higher Education, Assam states as follows:- “Sub: Regarding WP(C) No. 6887/2019 titled Prabhat Ch. Kalita -Vs-State of Assam and others. Ref: Your letter dated 30-09-2019. Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to state that there is no Govt. order till now regarding extension of the age of superannuation to 65 years. As you are going to complete 60 years of age on 31 October, 2019 afternoon, you will retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation of 31-10-2019 positively.” 7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that similarly situated persons have had their age of superannuation extended and as such, the respondents could not have discriminated against the petitioner, by not extending his date of superannuation. He also submits that the petitioner having been appointed as a Principal of the college, he is deemed to be a Professor. 8. Mr. The petitioner’s counsel submits that similarly situated persons have had their age of superannuation extended and as such, the respondents could not have discriminated against the petitioner, by not extending his date of superannuation. He also submits that the petitioner having been appointed as a Principal of the college, he is deemed to be a Professor. 8. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the Higher Education Department submits that just because the petitioner has been appointed as a Principal does not mean that he is a Professor, since there is no appointment order against the petitioner as a Professor. He also submits that the appointment order of the petitioner as a Principal states that he is a Lecturer, which has been redesignated as Assistant Professor. He also submits that the present issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in WA 161/2020 (Rupak Kumar Brahma vs. the State of Assam and 3 ors.), which was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 01.11.2021. 9. The respondents’ counsel submits that as no Government order has been issued implementing the Cabinet decision on 19.09.2012, for raising the age of retirement of Professors, which is, in any event, not applicable to the petitioner, there is no ground to claim enhancement of the retirement age to 65 years. As such, the writ petition has no merit. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 11. As can be seen from the rejection of the petitioner’s representation for enhancement of his retirement age, the stand of the State respondents is that the Government has not issued any order in pursuance to the Cabinet decision on 19.09.2012, extending the age of superannuation to 65 years. 12. Article 166 of the Constitution states as follows:- “ 166. Conduct of business of the Government of a State.- (1) All executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. (2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor. (3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion.” Article 166 of the Constitution provides that all executive actions of the Government of a State are to be expressed in the name of the Governor, which includes orders and instruments. A reading of Article 166 of the Constitution basically provides that the State Government would have to issue orders and instruments in the name of the Governor, for the State action to be made enforceable in law. There is nothing provided in Article 166 that a Cabinet decision, which has not been crystallized into an order, notification or any other form of instruments in terms of Article 166, can be said to be the conduct of business of the Government of a State. 13. In the case of J.P. Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan , reported in (2003) 5 SCC 134 , the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution requires that action must be taken by the authority concerned in the name of the Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution. Unless the above formality is observed, a Cabinet decision cannot be regarded as the action of the State. It further held that the Council of Ministers are advisors and as the Head of the State, the Governor is to act with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Therefore, till the advice is accepted by the Governor, views of the Council of Ministers do not get crystallised into an action of the State. 14. In the case of Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. , reported in AIR 1963 SC 395 , the Supreme Court has observed that constitutionally speaking, the Minister is no more than an adviser under the Head of the State, who is the Governor, who is to act with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. In the case of Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. , reported in AIR 1963 SC 395 , the Supreme Court has observed that constitutionally speaking, the Minister is no more than an adviser under the Head of the State, who is the Governor, who is to act with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Therefore, until such advice is accepted by the Governor, whatever the Minister or the Council of Ministers will say in regard to a particular matter, does not become the action of the State, until the advice of the Council of Ministers is accepted or deemed to be accepted by the Head of the State. As the opinion expressed by the Council of Ministers may/can be altered, which can be completely opposed to the earlier opinion, the Supreme Court thus held that to make the opinion amount to a decision of the Government, it must be communicated to the person concerned. In this respect, the Supreme Court in Bachhittar Singh (supra) , quoted the extract of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh , reported in AIR 1961 SC 493 , which is as follows:- "Mr. Gopal Singh attempted to argue that before the final order was passed the Council of Ministers had decided to accept the respondent's representation and to reinstate him, and that, according to him, the respondent seeks to prove by calling the two original orders. We are unable to understand this argument. Even if the Council of Ministers had provisionally decided to reinstate the respondent that would not prevent the Council from reconsidering the matter and coming to a contrary conclusion later on, until a final decision is reached by them and is communicated to the Rajpramukh in the form of advice and acted upon by him by issuing an order in that behalf to the respondent." The Supreme Court thus held in Bachhittar Singh (supra) that it is of the essence that the order has to be communicated to the person, who would be affected by the order of the State and make the person be bound by the order. For, until the order is communicated to the person affected by it, it would be open to the Council of Ministers to reconsider the matter over and over again and, therefore, till its communication, the order cannot be regarded as anything more than provisional in nature. 15. In the present case, the Cabinet decision on 19.09.2012, approving the raising the age of Professors from 60 years to 65 years, has not been converted/crystallized into an order issued by the State Government under Article 166. Thus, when there is no Government order, implementing the Cabinet decision, the same cannot be said to be enforceable in law, inasmuch as, the said Cabinet decision can only be said to be provisional in nature, which can be changed by the Council of Ministers on reconsideration of the matter. 16. The above being said, the fact remains that there is no document submitted by the petitioner to show that he has been appointed to the Professor grade at any stage of his life. The appointment of the petitioner as a Principal shows that he was appointed while he was in the grade of Lecturer, which has been re-designated as Assistant Professor. As such, the petitioner cannot claim to be in the grade of Professor, just because he has been appointed as a Principal of the college. Consequently, even if it is assumed that the Cabinet decision dated 19.09.2012 is enforceable in law, the same in any event would not cover the case of the petitioner. 17. It is also settled law that the question of increase or reduction of the age of superannuation of any Government employee vests with the concerned State Government in terms of its policy decision. In the present case, there is no policy decision implemented by the State Government, enhancing the age of retirement of a Principal of a college from 60 years to 65 years. Further, the petitioner in this case has already retired from service on 24.10.2019. He has approached this Court five years after his retirement, i.e. 23.07.2024, for increase of his retirement age. Due to the above reasons and due to laches in approaching this Court, no case for interference has been made out by the petitioner. As there is no merit in the writ petition, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.