JUDGMENT : ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J. 1. We have heard Mr. J.C. Gaur, learned Advocate for the petitioner. 2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 19.03.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition being WP (C) No.3782/2024. 3. By the said writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.10.2019, whereby his claim for continuation of service up to the age of 65 years was rejected. 4. The brief facts of the case for necessary adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant was appointed as the Principal of Paschim Borigog Anchlik Mahavidyalaya on 26.08.2005, and pursuant to a notification dated 26.09.2012, the Government of Assam had enhanced the age of superannuation of all Professors of educational institutions from 60 years to 65 years. While the college of the appellant was provincialised on 21.01.2014, his service as Principal was provincialised on 25.06.2015. Even though the age of superannuation of all Professors of educational institutions was enhanced from 60 to 65 years by the notification dated 26.09.2012, the appellant was asked to retire on attainment of age of 60 years. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the learned Single Judge, by way of writ petition being WP(C) No.6887/2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.09.2019 by allowing the appellant to submit a detailed representation to the authorities regarding his claim for enhancement of the age of superannuation. The appellant, thereafter, on 30.09.2019, submitted his representation. However, the respondent authorities by order dated 24.10.2019 rejected his claim for continuation up to the age of 65 years. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed WP(C) No.3782/2024, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 19.03.2025. Hence the present appeal. 6. It is the grievance of the appellant that he has been wrongly denied the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation despite being the Principal of a provincialised college. 7. The learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the appellant/petitioner primarily on the ground that the appellant had failed to bring any material to show that he has been appointed at Professor Grade at any stage of his life and therefore, only for the reason that he is appointed as Principal of the college, it cannot be a conclusion that he is a professor only for the reason that the essential qualification for appointment as a principal is a serving Professor. 8. 8. Upon comprehensive consideration of the pleadings, the materials placed on record, and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, we do not find any infirmity in order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing WP(C) No.3782/2023, even if we do not deal with the determination of the learned Single Judge so far relating to the issuance of any executive instruction extending the age of retirement of Professor to 65 years, though there was a cabinet decision in this regard. 9. It is not in dispute that the notification dated 26.09.2012 enhancing the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years applies specifically to professors of different institutions. The burden squarely lay on the appellant to establish that he was appointed and continued in service in the cadre of profession so as to avail the benefit of the said notification. Except for ascertaining that the post of Principal requires a serving professor as essential qualification, no documentary or substantive material has been produced by the appellant to demonstrate that he was ever appointed, promoted or designated as a Professor in the service records either prior to or after provincialisation. 10. The post of Principal, though it may require eligibility as a Professor is a distinct administrative post and cannot by itself, confer the status of professor for the purpose of service benefits, unless such status is demonstratably reflected in the appointment order service book or relevant statutory rules. Therefore, in our opinion the learned Single Judge has rightly held that, in absence of cogent materials establishing the appellant’s appointment at the Professor Grade, the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation cannot be extended to him as a matter of right. Further the fact that the college was provincialised on 21.01.2014 and that the appellant service as Principal was provincialised on 25.06.2015 does not, by itself alter the nature of his cadre or entitled him to benefits meant exclusively for professors. The rejection of the appellant’s representation by order dated 24.10.2019 is thus based on relevant considerations and does not suffer from any arbitrariness, illegality or perversity warranting interference. 11. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present intra court appeal. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.