- (1.) The special appeal has arisen from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23 June 2015 in a writ petition filed by the appellants. The relief which the appellants sought was in the nature of a writ restraining the respondents from interfering with their working as assistant teachers until the end of academic session 2015-16 i.e. until 31 March 2016. The learned Single Judge finding no merit in the petition has dismissed the petition by the impugned judgment and order. Both the appellants are assistant teachers in Bapu Inter College, Sadat, Ghazipur. The date of birth of the first appellant is 3 January 1953 and hence he attained the age of superannuation of 62 years on 2 January 2015. The date of birth of the second appellant is 14 January 1953 and he consequently attained the age of superannuation on 13 January 2015. At the material time, the date of superannuation fell within the midst of the academic session 2014-15. Hence, under the provisions of Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the appellants were permitted to continue until 30 June 2015 which was the end of the academic session 2014-15. Now, it would be material to note that, at the relevant time, the academic session commenced from 1 July and ended on 30 June. The academic session as prescribed in Regulation 21 of Chapter III came to be altered following an amendment to Regulation 21 by a gazette notification dated 17 June 2015. The unamended and amended provisions of Regulation 21 read as follows:
(2.) As a result of the amended provisions, the academic year was changed to 1 April to 31 March of the following year. Under the then existing provisions, the superannuation of the appellants fell in the midst of academic session 2014-15 and hence they were permitted to continue until 30 June 2015. The issue is as to whether they would be entitled to a further extension of service until 31 March 2016 following the change in the academic year.
(3.) The learned Single Judge has answered that issue in negative holding that the appellants had already taken the benefit of extension of employment under the existing Regulation which was applicable to them. In the view of the learned Single Judge, Regulation 21 has not provided for an extension of service to those who had attained the age of superannuation in the midst of academic session 2014-15 and they were only entitled to continue till the end of that academic session. The learned Single Judge has observed as follows: The extension of service of a person in employment is a concept well known to service law. On attaining the age of superannuation, no employee has any right to claim continuance in service. However, the employer, in terms of the relevant service rules, has power to grant extension of service to an employee. The employee has no right to claim extension of service rather it is an enabling power of the employer under Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations to utilize the service of an employee in the interest of the organization so that teaching of the students due to retirement of teacher in mid session may not be disrupted. The petitioners attained the age of superannuation in the mid of academic session 2014-15 which ends on 30th June, 2015. Thus, the petitioners have no right to continue or claim continuation in service after 30th June, 2015. Unamended Regulation 21 merely has the effect of postponing the date of superannuation and continuation of the same service till 30th June following the date of superannuation. Amended regulation 21 effective from the academic session 2015-16 has no application with regard to the petitioners who attained the age of superannuation in the mid of academic session 2014-15 prior to 1st April, 2015. Thus, in the absence of any legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting right, which is the foundation for a writ in the nature of mandamus, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked.";