Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

Vide these petitions, the petitioners have challenged their respective termination orders by way of alleged retirement at the age of 60 years being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the terms and conditions of the employment. Further seek directions thereby declaring that the petitioners are entitled to continue in the employment of the respondents college till they attain the age of retirement of 65 years. Consequently, restrained the respondents and particularly respondent college not to give effect to their impugned contemplated action of terminating the services of the petitioners.

2. In all the petitions, two following questions arises:

(i) Whether the petitioners can be regarded as “Teacher”?

(ii) What is the retirement age of the petitioners?

3. Accordingly, the events and facts of the writ petition in W.P.(C) 3679/2017 shall be discussed inter alia and the facts and issues of other petitions shall not be discussed for the reasons that the issue in all the petitions are same and this court has decided to dispose of these petitions by this common judgment.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appoint