CW 8231/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.8231/2010 Prof. Smt. Ranjana S. Jain Versus Union of India & Ors. Date of Order ::: 06/08/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Mahendra Shah, for petitioner Mr. NA Naqvi, Addl. Adv. Gen., for respondents State Mr. AK Sharma, for University of Rajasthan Mr. Bharat Vyas, for respondent UGC Counsel for respondents submit that controversy raised herein has been decided by this Court while dismissing CWP-8156/2010 & bunch of others (CKG Rajurkar Vs. Union of India & Ors) vide judgment dt.05/08/10 infra: “Even if as per terms relating age of superannuation, referred to in para 2.1.0, read with 2.3.1. Discretion being voluntary left for the State Government/Universities falling within purview of State legislation to accept and make appropriate amendment in their statutes; while recommendations under scheme dt.31/12/2008 being made part of Regulations, 2010 in the form of Appendix-I - its para 8 (f) & (p) if read together clearly makes incumbent upon the State Government/University that it stands extended to the University, Colleges or other higher Education institution which are within purview of State legislature. As already observed (supra), even if Regulations, 2010 if being come into CW 8231/10 //2// effect on being published in official gazette, that too will not improve case of present petitioners who are seeking mandamus from this Court for their continuance in the service upto 65 years in terms of Regulations, 2010 – in the absence of Ord.376-F/R.56 of RSR which governs their service conditions being amended by the competent authority; in the opinion of this Court, age of superannuation of Teaching Staff of the University/ Colleges, it would be regulated in accordance with their service Rules/Ordinance, as the case may be and will not stand over-ruled or become otiose as urged by petitioners in the light of recommendations dt.31/12/2008 or even after subsequent Regulations, 2010 if having come into effect on being published in official gazette of India unless amended by competent authority. Consequently, writ petitions and so also stay petitions as per Schedule annexed herewith fail and are hereby dismissed.” As regards judgments (supra), it has not been disputed by Counsel for petitioner about controversy being decided by this Court. In the light whereof, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.2/ 8231CW2010Aug6AgeUniv.doc