Sudhanshu Dhulia,J. - (1.)Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the writ appellants/writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 3 and Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 4. Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.5.
(2.)The writ appellants before this Court were the writ petitioner nos.1 and 2 before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.4187/2017. The case of the writ appellants/writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that they were the Registrar and Director, colleges and University, respectively of Bodoland University and since the retirement age in all the Universities, including the Gauhati University had been increased from sixty to sixty-two years, their age of superannuation is also liable to be increased from sixty to sixty-two years. For their benefit they have cited to the two resolutions of the Executive Council of the Bodoland University dated 29.07.2015 and 27.11.2015. The said two resolutions had recommended that the age of superannuation of the writ appellants/writ petitioners be increased from sixty to sixty-two years. This argument of the writ appellants/writ petitioners, however, did not find favour of the learned Single Judge for the reasons that the age of retirement must be in the statute. The statute which was applicable for the Bodoland University at the relevant time still carries sixty years as retirement age. Moreover, the recommendations which were there in favour of the writ appellants/writ petitioners were not acted upon in form of any amendment to the statute, nor had it received any approval of the Chancellor, which was mandatory. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed with the following observations:
"12. As the sole basis of the contention of the petitioner to assail the communication dated 05.07.2017 is Clause-14 of the regular statute which has not yet been sent to the Chancellor for his approval as required under Section 32(5) of the Bodoland University Act, this Court for the present refrains itself from adjudicating the matter as well as from making any observation or expressing any view on the claim made by the respective parties. It is clarified that whatsoever is recorded hereinabove, are the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and it does not convey the view of the Court. As the process of making the regular statute has not been subjected to the complete procedure as required under Section 32, more particularly the requirement of Section 32(5), it is provided that the Vice Chancellor of the Bodoland University shall forthwith transmit and place the regular statute before the Chancellor and thereafter the required procedure of Section 32(5) may be undertaken.

In terms of the above, writ petition stands disposed of."

(3.)After having heard the learned counsel for the writ appellants/writ petitioners Mr. Mahmud and the Senior Advocate for the learned Chancellor Mr. Mahanta, we are of the considered view that no interference is called for with the order of the learned Single Judge as the date of superannuation has to be determined from the statute. There is still no statute in favour of the writ appellants/writ petitioners which would grant them this benefit. We are, however, also conscious of the fact that there has been resolutions of the Executive Council in favour of the writ appellants/writ petitioners. The resolutions would bring the retirement age of the Registrar and equivalent posts in conformity with the UGC regulations and AICTE rules. The net effect of this would be that the retirement age would be increased from sixty to sixty-two years. We dispose of the present writ appeal with the request to the Chancellor, as the representation is pending with him, to consider granting approval of the resolutions of the Executive Council and take a decision as expeditiously as possible, unless such a decision has been taken already.