D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) HAVING heard learned Counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, Rule.
(2.) LEARNED Counsels for the Respondents waives notice of Rule on behalf of their respective Respondents.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is working as Demonstrator with Respondent No. 5 since 1977. The Petitioner is a teacher within the meaning of Section 2(v) of Jharkhand State University Act, 2005. It has also been held by this Court in the case of S.P. Singh and Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in, 2010(2) JCR 266 that the Demonstrator of the college is a teaching staff member and is a teacher within the meaning of aforesaid Sub -section (v) of Section 2 of the Act, 2005. The said decision is also annexed at Annexure -9 to the memo of petition. Thus, the Petitioner is a teacher and, therefore, as per Section 67 of the Act, 2005, age of retirement of the Petitioner is 62 years and, therefore, the Petitioner ought not to be compelled to retire or superannuate upon attaining the age of 60 years on 31st January, 2011. Thus, there is prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that balance of convenience is also in favour of the Petitioner and if the Petitioner is to be compelled to retire illegally on 31st January, 2011, in violation of Section 67 of the Act, 2005 and in violation of the aforesaid decision, it will cause an irreparable loss, which may not be compensated in terms of money and, therefore, stay may kindly be granted so that the Petitioner may be allowed to continue the services with Respondent No. 5 as Demonstrator even after 31st January, 2011, till this writ petition is decided or the Petitioner attains the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier. Learned Counsels for the Respondents are seeking time to file their counter affidavits.;