The nature of the petitioner's appointment as Superintendent and his entitlement to an extended retirement age were determined based on the specific provisions of the relevant acts and statutes.

1. Heard Mr. Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Saurabh Lavania, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner has assailed the retirement notice dated 29 January 2007 whereby he being non-teaching officer was asked to retire on attaining the age of 60 years. He has also assailed some other orders of similar nature. The King George Medical College, Lucknow1 had advertised the post of Whole Time Anesthetist. The petitioner applied for that post. He was regularly selected/ appointed on the post of Whole Time Anesthetist in the department of Anesthesia, KGMC, Lucknow vide order dated 01.11.1975. His services were confirmed vide order 08.03.1978 w.e.f. 01.02.1978. In 1981 an Ordinance was issued by the State Government taking over the management and control of the affairs of KGMC, Lucknow in its hand which was restored to the Lucknow University only on 10.08.1992 as prior to 1983, The KGMC, Lucknow was managed by Lucknow University. Subsequently vide order dated 07.08.1987 the post of Anesthetist was converted to the post of Lecturer in the department of Anesthesia. Pursuant to which the petitioner including four other Anesthetist were designated as Lecturer in the department of Anesthesiology, KGMC, Lucknow. In the seniority list of Lecturer the petitioner was placed at serial No.1. Under the provisions of the First Statute of Lucknow University, substantively appointed Lecturer was to be designated as Assistant Professor after attaining three years of teaching experience. Accordingly the petitioner's post of Anesthetist was converted to the post of Assistant Professor w.e.f. 11.08.1990 and his salary was fixed in the pay scale of Assistant Professor vide recommendation dated 31.08.1992. The Principal of KGMC, Lucknow recommended the petitioner to be appointed as Superintendent of Gandhi Memorial Hospital and associated Hospital with immediate effect. The Executive Council, approved the said recommendation/ appointment in its meeting held on 28.06.1994 by appointing the petitioner as Superintendent, Gandhi Memorial and Associate Hospital, Lucknow.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that his responsibility was grossly increased as apart from being a teacher of the College he was asked to perform the duties on the post of Superintendent of the College. It was put-forth that petitioner was appointed on the post of Superintendent in continuation of holding the post of Assistant Professor. It has been submitted that keeping in view the emergent situation created due to strike of the non-teaching staff, the petitioner was given the officiating charge of the post of Superintendent which was subsequently affirmed by the Executive Council of the University, but his lien on the post of Assistant Professor was never terminated. Thus it has been submitted that petitioner's appointment on the post of Superintendent was a stop-gap arrangement in continuation of his appointment as Assistant Professor. The respondents treating him as non-teaching staff had issued notice to retire him on attaining the age of 60 years, whereas the age of retirement of the Assistant Professor of the University was 62 years.

4. Moreover, the petitioner had not submitted any resignation from the post of Assistant Professor Anesthesiology as has been stated by the Assistant Registrar of the University vide letter dated 8 August 1997.

5. It is put-forth that the petitioner was never informed about termination of his lien on the post of Teacher more so he had never resigned from the said post. It was submitted that Section 7(2) of Chattarpati Sahuji Maharaj Medical University Act, 2002 (in short Act, 2002) provides that 'the Pro-Vice Chancellor and a Chief Superintendent of Hospitals may be appointed by the Vice Chancellor from amongst the professors of the University. It was further submitted that the allegations that the petitioner had relinquished the office of Assistant Profess