1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. M.C.A. ST. NO. 14819 OF 2008 IN W.P. NO. 1880/07. Tejram Kawdu Kapgate .vs. The State of Mah. & others ________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrars orders. Mr. A. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED: NOVEMBER 20, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. Application is granted in terms of prayer clause (i). WRIT PETITION NO. 1880/07 : Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the validity of the paragraph no.22 of the Government Resolution dated 11.12.1999. He also seeks direction to the University Grants Commission to frame regulations regarding the age of retirement of Principals. He also seeks a direction to the University Grants Commission to avoid discrimination in the matter of service conditions throughout the country by framing appropriate regulations. He also seeks a direction to the respondent no.1 State Government and respondent no.2 University to pay his salary till he attains the age of 62 years. According to the averments in the petition, the date of the birth of the petitioner is 8.4.1947. The age of retirement according to the statute framed by the University is 60 2 years. Therefore, the petitioner will stand retired on completion of period of month of April, 2007 unless in terms of paragraph no.22 of the Government Resolution dated 11.12.1999 is granted extension in service. Though validity of Clause 22 of the Government Resolution is challenged, the learned Counsel is not in a position to show as to how that clause is invalid. We do not see any substance in the petition in so far as it challenges validity of Clause 22 of the Government Resolution. So far as prayer clauses 2 & 3 are concerned, they are seeking issue of writ of mandamus to legislate and, therefore, such a writ can never be issued. So far as the prayer for direction for payment of salary to respondent nos. 1 & 2 is concerned, Clause 22 of the Government Resolution makes it absolutely clear that salary is to be paid to a teacher who has been granted extension in service after 60 years is not admissible in grant-in-aid. Therefore, if the management of the petitioner has chosen to grant him extension in service, his salary will have to be paid by the management. There is no substance in the petition. The petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE. J.