PeUtioner COURTOFCHHATnSSARH: BiLASPUR Writ Petitipn No, 7400 of 2007 Vijay Prakash Khare, S/o. Late Shri , Radhey Shyam Khare, aged about 57 years, Advocate and Ex. Part-time Teacher of BCS Govt.PG Cottege, Dhamtari, residing at Kostha Para, Dhamta" 491773 (CG}. 1} State of Chhattisgarh, through fhe Seoretar/, Department of Migher Education, D.K.S. Bhavf'an, Mantralaya, G.E. Road, Shastri Chowts, Raipur. 2) The Principai, B.C.S. GovS. Post Graduate Coliegs, Dhamtari 4S3773 ;CG). 3) Ttie Head of Department, Department of Law Facuifr/, B.C.S. Govt. Post Graduate Coiiege, Dhamtari 493773 (CG). CA'rtt Petitior, under Articles 22S of the Constitution of India'i Present: Shri B.P. Rao.counseiforthepetitioner, P.K. B'laduri, Pane! Lswyerfor tiie Stste. (Passedon 27al dayofJune.2008) Leamscf counsei appearing for the petitioner submiSs that the petitioner is an Adycscate by profession and is practicing in the Gourts sltuated at Cftamtari anci eise-where a!so. Learned counsei further submits that She petitioner has attainetf the age of 58 years as on date anct wants Sosen/e Law CoHege as Part-time Teaoher upto the age of 62 years. 2) As per oircular dated 22-6-2007 (Annexure P/12) the Advocates are eiigibte to work as Part-time Teachsrs onty upto the age of 58 years. Admittedly, the petitioner has crossed the age iimitation of 58 yeare. 3) Leamea oounsei appsaring for the petitioner submits that the teachers are a.'towed to work upto the age of 62 y'esrs, thus, the petitioner 'oe aiso permitted to work upto 82 years. 4) The contention of the petitionsr is liable to be rejectecl on U-ie simple ground that the teachers, who are fuli time teachers, have no o'ther profession. ag»»»«isE;a""1 There 'is age Bmitation of 62 years. The age limitation for the full time feachera cannot be made apoiicable in case of professional Part-time !aw teachers. The petitioner cioes not chaiienge the age limitation on any other grounct, exoept that age of retirement of full tlme teachers can be made applicabte to th®part time teachers also. The petitioner has fsiled to substantiate his arguments on the basis of any document or any ground. 5) Thus, this petition 18 devoid of merit and is rejected accorciingiy. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge