M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM,.J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed by the non -teaching employee of the University for the issuance of direction declaring Jharkhand State Universities (Amendment) Act (Act 05, 2005) published in the Jharkhand Gazette (Extra - ordinary) dated 25.7.2005 to be ultra vires to the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder Section 67(a) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 has been amended, providing age of retirement to be 62 years for the teachers of Universities and Colleges and such officers as declared equivalent to them, whereas providing 60 years for the non -teaching employees with effect from the date of notification of the Act in the official Gazette.
(2.) THE petitioners, being non -teaching employees, have a grievance that by Amendment Act of 2005, the date of retirement of teachers of University or College has been enhanced to 62 years whereas the date of retirement of non - teaching employees has been allowed to continue to be 60 years. According to the petitioners, the said Amendment Act of 2005 whereby the date of retirement of teachers has been enhanced from 60 years to 62 years whereas retirement of non -teaching employees has been allowed to continue to be 60 years is not only arbitrary, but is also mala fide action of the State Government.
(3.) THE followings are the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioners: (i) The Amendment Act, 2005 is not only beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature, but is also unreasonable, as there is no justification for increasing the age of retirement of teachers alone without increasing the date of retirement of non -teaching employees, when the service conditions of non -teaching and teaching employees of the University and Colleges are uniform. (ii) It is the settled law that when the age of superannuation of teaching staff has been raised, the State should also raise the age of superannuation of non -teaching staff at par with the teaching staff. (iii) This act is completely arbitrary as no reasons have been assigned for making discrimination between the teaching staff and non -teaching staff when the conditions of service have been same for both since beginning. (iv) The burden of establishing the reasonableness of a clarification or its nexus with the object of legislation is on the State. The State has completely failed to make out a case of reasonableness of the arbitrary classification and its nexus with the object to be achieved. (v) Amendment Act of 2005 is ultra vires because no guidelines have been prescribed and unfettered powers have been vested. ;