JUDGMENT :

(Saurabh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 5 and Shri Girjesh Tripathi, learned Standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was rendering his services before the respondent no. 3 as an assistant teacher and as per the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which has been regulated with the different amendment introduced by the State Government of U.P. from time to time the age of superannuation pertaining to the petitioner is 62 years, whereas he has been compelled to retire at the age of 60 years only. Having been aggrieved with the notice/order of retirement dated 10.12.2008 and the same is under challenge in the instant petition.

3. For substantiating the claim of the petitioner, the provisions of the regulation as well as the extent rules applicable over the petitioner has relied upon which is ensured by the legislation for each and every teacher imparting in the same services before the different institution recognized by the competent authority i.e. respondent no. 2.

4. Considering the provisions applicable over the petit