S.N.AGGARWAL, J

The petitioner was a Professor in the Department of Sanskrit, Department of Delhi University and he had to retire on attaining the age of superannuation at the age of 62 years on 31.01.2007. However, before attaining the age of superannuation, he had applied for his re-employment in the University as per its Rules and Regulations applicable at that time on 30.10.2006. The application for re-employment was made by him in the prescribed format accompanied by necessary attachments, containing details of his publications and the other details of his accomplishments and achievements in his career along with recommendations from the Head of the Department for his re-employment. The University vide its communication dated 12.02.2007 addressed to the Head of Department of Sanskrit with a copy thereof to the petitioner, allowed him to continue in service till the decision of the Executive Council of the University regarding his re-employment. The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of India, issued a circular on 23.03.2007 which was addressed to the Secretary, University Grants Commission and enhanced the age of superannuation of the teachers of the University and the Colleges from 62 years to 65 years.

2. The above circular of Ministry of Human Resource Development was communicated by the University Grants Commission to all the State Universities including the Delhi University (Respondent No. 1 herein) in the first week of April, 2007. The respondent no. 1 University vide its notification bearing No./Estab.(T)/2007/ dated 12.04.2007 notified to all the Departments and the Colleges affiliated to the said University that the age of superannuation of all the persons holding teaching positions on regular employment against sanctioned posts as on 15.03.2007 in any of the Centrally Funded Higher and Technical Education shall be increased from the present 62 years to 65 years.

3. The respondent no. 1 University vide its letter dated 20.06.2007 informed the Head of Department of Sanskrit that the Executive Council has not recommended the case of the petitioner for his re-employment. The above decision of the University was communicated to the petitioner by the Head of the Sanskrit Department vide letter dated 02.07.2007 received by him on 07.07.2007. Immediately on receipt of this communication by the petitioner, he filed the present writ petition on 13.07.2007 with the following prayers :

i) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of certio rari quashing the decision contained in letter no. Estab.(T)/V/Skt/17625 dated 20.06.2007 issued by the respondent no. 2.

ii) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-employ the petitioner in the Department of Sanskrit till the attainment of age of 65 years as per the Circular dated 23.03.2007, Annexure-3;

iii) Issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Dr.A.K. Dubey, Registrar of respondent no. 1 University, has filed his affidavit in response to notice of this writ petition. He has taken a stand that the case of the petitioner for his re-employment was considered and rejected by the Advisory Committee on reemployment in its meeting held on 14.03.2007 in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 13.10.2003 and the relevant resolutions of the Executive Council particularly EC Resolution No. 22 dated 11.04.1981/159 dated 22.01.1991 and in consonance with the requirements of Ordinance XII Clause 3-A(2). It is further stated in the counter affidavit of the respondents that the cases of the teachers who were recommended by the Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 14.03.2007, were placed before the Executive Council on 08.06.2007 and since the petitioner’s case was not recommended by the Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 14.03.2007,