Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61150 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18471 of 2016 Petitioner :- Sultan Salahuddin Khan Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Javed Habib Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Manish Kumar Srivastava,S.C.,Surendra Prasad Sharma Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the 3rd respondent through its appointment letter dated 16.07.1994. After completion of two years as probationer, his services were confirmed w.e.f. 01.07.1996 vide letter dated 29.06.1996. The 3rd respondent vide letter dated 01.07.2015 has retired the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years i.e. on 02.08.2015. Assailing the said action, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has moved a representation on 04.08.2015 requesting the 3rd respondent to follow Central Board of Secondary Education Rule 30.1, according to which the age of retirement of lecturer is 60 years. The 3rd respondent considered the request made by the petitioner and his services were extended till 31.03.2016 vide letter dated 02.09.2015. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that as per amended Rule 30.1 of the Central Board of Secondary Education, the age of retirement would be on attaining the age 60 years but contrary to the same, the 3rd respondent has retired the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that though Central Board of Secondary Education has directed the 3rd respondent vide order dated 14.01.2016 that the petitioner is entitled to continue till the age of 60 years, despite the same, the 3rd respondent has retired the petitioner and further term has been extended on the basis of consolidated pay instead of regular pay. 6. In view of the guidelines and Rule 30.1 of the Central Board of Secondary Education, the 3rd respondent ought to have considered the case of the petitioner till the age of 60 years as petitioner is entitled to salary till attaining the age of 60 years. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested to allow the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to pay salary to the petitioner till the age of 60 years. 7. In reply to the said contention, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has submitted that the 3rd respondent is an independent minority unaided autonomous Institution and the conditions of Central Board of Secondary Education are not applicable to the Institution in question. Further after notice, the petitioner has only requested to continue till 31.03.2016 and no further request has been made by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner is neither entitled to any salary nor he is entitled to continue till the age of 60 years. 8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of M.K. Gandhi Vs. Director of Education Secondary UP Lucknow, 2005 3 UPLBEC 2187 and has laid emphasis on the observations made in paragraph 76 (e) and (f) which reads as under: "(e) In case any school does not follow the service rules framed by it or the bye-laws deemed to be adopted as held in this case then the school has to pay penalty for violating the same namely withdrawal of its affiliation. (f) The Board is bound to follow its bye-laws and in case of any violation it has to take action under its bye-laws to disaffiliate the school. A writ petition is maintainable against the Board in case it fails to perform its duty." 9. According to the said observations, there is no binding or mandatory obligation to follow the Central Board of Secondary Education Rules by private unaided institution. If Rules are not followed, the only recourse is open to the CBSE to take action against the Institution. In this case, the petitioner has requested only extension of term till 31.03.2016, accordingly the Institution has permitted the petitioner to continue till 31.03.2016. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case. 10. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted fact that respondent - institution is a minority unaided Institution, hence there is no mandatory enforcement of the CBSE Rules against the said Institution. It is for the Institution either to follow such law or bye-laws of the Institution. Only recourse is that if there is any contravention of the CBSE Rules, the CBSE has right to take action against the Institution. But the petitioner has no right to claim relief as the Institution does not come under the definition of State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the above said circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 12. However, liberty stands reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities for further relief. Merely because of dismissal of the writ petition, the respondents would not be entitled to withhold any post retiral benefits. If post retiral benefits are not already settled, the respondents are directed to settle the same within a period of six weeks from today. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad