IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 14831 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.K.RAVIKUMAR, READER, DEPARTMENT OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH IN BOTANY, S.D.COLLEGE, ALAPPUZHA-688003. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110 002. 2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH SAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. 6. THE MANAGER, S.D. COLLEGE, ALAPPUZHA-688003. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS: 7. BABU KANNOTHUMKANDY, PUTHILON KUNNATH HOUSE, MAMBARAM P.O., PARAMBAY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 8. SARITHA SIVADAS, SAKETHAM, KAVIL HOUSE, KOTTAPADI PO, THRISSUR DIST. 9. SREEBA, DWARAKA, RAMNAGAR, VADAKKANTHARA POST, PALAKKAD DIST. (ADDL.RESPONDENTS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.585/10 DATED 19.1.10) ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC FOR R1,2 SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R6 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R6 SRI.O.D.SIVADAS FOR ADDL.R7 TO 9 ADV.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, Assistant Solicitor General ADV.M.SASINDRAN, SC GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 27759 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 14831 & 27759 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these writ petitions are college teachers. Their claim in these writ petitions is against their retirement on attainment of 55 years of age. According to them, as per the UGC scheme adopted by the Government, the retirement age is 65 years and therefore they are entitled to continue in service till they attain 65 years. The question as to whether the Government is competent to fix a retirement age different from that recommended by the UGC in their scheme, has been considered by several Division Benches of this Court holding that the Government is perfectly competent to fix a lower age of retirement than what is recommended by the UGC. One such decision is in W.A.No.826/2007. Accordingly, relying on those decisions, these writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2