HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12330 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 and perused the records. Instant petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "[A] Issue a direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties no.-3 and 4 to allow the humble petitioner for her service extension up to her actual retirement age 62 years, as per the directives already issued by the opposite party no.- 2, as per the directive letter dated-12/09/2025, issued especially in the matter - of the humble petitioner, already enclosed as annexure no.-7 to the instant writ petition, to meet the end of justice. [B] Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper, in the present days circumstances, in favour of the petitioner and in the interest of justice." It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed under the self finance scheme on 10.10.2006 and term was extended time to time, lastly he was appointed on 01.10.2020 for five years, but his terms has not been extended though, the age of superannuation of regularly selected candidates is 62 year and the petitioner has attained only 60 years of age, till now. He submitted that there is nothing adverse against the petitioner so as to consider him for extension for further period of time upto 62 years of age. He also submitted that the Registrar of the University has also directed on 12.09.2025, to extend the services of the petitioner up Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Chandra Rastogi, Pradeep Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Kumud Singh .....Petitioner(s) Vice Chancellordr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University Ayodhya U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) till 62 years of age which has not been complied with. After the aforesaid arguments, counsel for the petitioner submits that he has claimed for extension of period of time vide the representation dated 20.09.2025, which has still not been considered. He submits that interest of justice would be sub-served if this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 20.09.2025 within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have no objection to the contention aforesaid. Be that as it may, without entering into the merit of the case, the respondent no.3/Manager/Awaitnik Mantri, K.S. Saket Postgraduate College, Ayodhya, is hereby directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 20.09.2025, within a period of three weeks, in accordance with law, from the date of this order. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is disposed of. The personal appearance of respondent no. 3 is hereby exempted. November 6, 2025 Mayank WRIA No. 12330 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench