AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,J. - (1.)This writ petition has been filed by the Assistant Professors working in the Government College of Arts and Government College of Architecture, Chandigarh, challenging the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, dtd. 27/10/2020 (Annexure P-8), vide which the original application preferred by them seeking issuance of an appropriate order restraining the respondents from retiring/superannuating the petitioners till they attain the age of 65 years and to consider them for extension in service till the age of 70 years, stands dismissed.
(2.)The primary contention of the petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as this Court is that the regulations framed under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'AICTE Act, 1987') i.e. All India Council for Technical Education (Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Degree) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'AICTE Regulations, 2010') (Annexure A-10) and thereafter, AICTE Regulations on Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Minimum Qualifications for the Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff such as Library, Physical Education and Training and Placement Personnel in Technical Institutions and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Technical Education (Degree) Regulations, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'AICTE Regulations, 2019') (Annexure A-11) would apply, according to which, the petitioners are entitled to continue in service till 65 years of age with further extension up to 70 years instead of The Conditions of Service of Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992, notified on 13/1/1992 (Annexure A-3) (hereinafter referred to as '1992 Rules'), according to which, the age of superannuation is 58 years.
Similar would be the position with regard to petitioner No. 2-Sh. Bheem Sain Malhotra, who is working in the Government College of Architecture and his services would be governed by the UGC Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'UGC Regulations, 2010') and the Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'Architecture Regulations, 2017'), which have been promulgated by the Council of Architecture in accordance with the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972, according to which, again the age of superannuation would be 65 years with a provision for re-employment after superannuation up to the age of 70 years.

(3.)Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners asserts that the respondents are wrongly retiring the petitioners from service by giving effect to the 1992 Rules which came into effect vide the Notification dtd. 13/1/1992 (Annexure A-3) issued by the President in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
He asserts that these rules i.e. the 1992 Rules issued under Article 309 of the Constitution would hold the field till the appropriate Legislature passes an Act for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services. Once the provisions are made by the appropriate Legislature, the said provisions/regulations would hold the field and the rules framed under proviso to Article 309 shall cease to operate. He asserts that the Rules framed by Notification dtd. 13/1/1992 would cease to operate with the coming into force of AICTE Regulations, 2010 followed by the AICTE Regulations, 2019 (Annexures A-10 and A-ll respectively). Similarly, he asserts that with the coming into force of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the Council of Architecture Regulations, 2017 qua petitioner No. 2, the above-mentioned notification would not apply. He, therefore, submits that the age of superannuation of the petitioners would be now 65 years with a further provision of extension up to 70 years in the light of these regulations and not 58 years which is being pressed into service by the respondents. The action of the respondent, thus, is not sustainable.