ANAND PRAKASH TYAGI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESERVING reasons to be recorded later we had by our short order dated 7th September, 1993, dismissed the present special appeal. We now proceed to give reasons for that order.

(2.) BY his common judgment an order dated 16th August, 1993 a learned single Judge disposed of three writ petitions raising identical disputes The primary dispute was whether the State Government's order dated 6th May, 1982, which provided for retention in service for two years of a teacher who had been awarded national or State level " award after attaining the age of superannuation, created a legally enforceable right in such teacher. The secondary question was whether the State Government had acted arbitrarily and with discrimination while denying retention in service to the petitioners in the three writ petitions. All the three petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge, Two of the petitioners, namely, Dr. Prem Dutt Chamoli and Sri Rufus Mahesh Kumar Browne, filed special appeal against the said judgment which were dismissed by us through judgment and order dated 30th August, 1993. All the three points mentioned herein were negatived by us. The remaining petitioner, namely, Sri Anand Prakash Tyagi, has now preferred the , instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that certain fresh points have been raised in the present special appeal. On the basis of these allegedly fresh points the learned counsel has claimed reconsideration of our judgment and order dated 30th August, 1993. We: have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at some length.

(3.) THE age of retirement of a teacher, including the Principal, is admittedly prescribed by a statutory provision viz Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the same is 60 years. Upto this age, subject to statutory provisions, a teacher has the right to remain in service but thereafter, as observed earlier, it is, at the most, privilege. THE claim of continuance will, therefore, not involve assertion of a constitutional or a legal right.