1. Heard Mr.D.K. Mishra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General Assam assisted by Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7. Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior counsel has appeared for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 whereas Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel, University Grants Commission (UGC) has appeared for the respondent Nos. 8 and 9.

2. The communication dated 26/09/2012 notifying the decision of the State Cabinet raising the age of superannuation of the Professors in all the Educational Institutions in the State of Assam from 60 years to 65 years as well as the notification dated 19/12/2012 issued by the Dibrugarh University, implementing the Cabinet decision, are under challenge in the present writ proceeding.

3. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer under the Dibrugarh University in the department of Pharmaceutical Science, on 11/03/1985 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Reader on 19/03/2001. The petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 01/01/2011 from which post, he had retired with effect from 31/01/2014 on attaining the age of 60 years. The grievance of the writ petitioner in this writ petition are twofold, firstly, that the decision of the State Cabinet enhancing the age of retirement only in case of "Professors" to the exclusion of other grades of teachers including the Associate Professors serving in the same institution was discriminatory and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, having regard to the age of the petitioner recorded in the Matriculation Certificate, his date of superannuation ought to have been 28/02/2014 and not 31/01/2014.

4. By referring to the circular dated 31/12/2008 issued by the Government of India addressed to the Secretary of the University Grants Commission (UGC) , Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the Government of India had introduced a Scheme for revision of scale of pay of the teachers in the Central Universities as well as for raising their age of superannuation after considering the recommendations made by the UGC. By inviting the attention of this Court to Clauses 8 (f) and 8 (p) (v) of the notification dated 31/12/2008 the learned senior counsel contends that the decision to enhance the retirement age of the teachers to 65 years was taken by the Government in view of the shortage of teachers in the Universities and other teaching institutions. The learned senior counsel has therefore, argued that by the notification dated 31/12/2008 a composite scheme for revision of pay scale and also for enhancement of retirement age of the teachers to 65 years had been introduced and since the Central Government has accepted the recommendation of the UGC in its entirety and the State of Assam has also revised the pay scale of teachers by following the UGC recommendations, the decision to enhance the retirement age of all teachers to 65 years would also be applicable in case of the teachers serving under the State Universities and the Colleges there under.

5. By referring to Section 4 of the Dibrugarh University Teachers Service Conditions Ordinance, 1974 (as amended up to 31/12/2010) Mr. Mishra further contends that the ordinance envisages 5 (five) grades of teachers which include Professor, Associate Professor, Reader, Assistant Professor and such other grades of teachers as the University may create from time to time. According to Section 3 (b) of the Dibrugarh University Act, 1965, teacher means and includes teachers appointed as per the Dibrugarh University Act against a substantive post. According to Mr. Mishra, the various grades of teachers in the U