Sujoy Paul, J.

1. These petitions involve common and identical issues. They are, therefore, heard analogously with consent and decided conjointly by this common order.

2. Contention of the petitioners is that they are holding various posts which should be treated as "teacher" and therefore, they should be permitted to continue till 65 years of age. The designations of petitioners writ petition wise in tabular form are as under :-

Facts are taken from WP. 5749/2013

3. It is contended by Shri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working as Training Superintendent. While holding said post, the petitioner is required to impart education/training to the pupil. In these batch of petitions, it is contended that Government issued an executive instructions and treated the post of the petitioners as teacher. Reliance is placed on circular (Annexure P/2 and P/3 dated 19th October, 2010). The bone of contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after issuance of relevant recruitment rules, the Government issued executive instructions thereby treated their posts in teaching cadre and therefore, for all purposes including date of retirement, they should be treated as teacher. By placing reliance on : AIR 1996 SC 2733 (Sr. Jagathigowda, C.N. and Ors. Vs. Chairman, Cauvery Gramina Bank and Ors.), (2006) 11 SCC 731 (I) (Retd. Armed Forces Medical Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.) and : (2011) 14 SCC 588 (State of Punjab Vs. Jagdish Kaur). It is contended that executive instructions can be issued to supplement the rules. After having issued such instructions whereby the petitioners designations were brought in the ambit of 'teacher', it is no more open to the respondents to retire the petitioners at the age of 62 years.

4. Another limb of argument of Shri Sharma is that the earlier age of retirement of other employees than teachers was 60 years petitioners were permitted to continue up to 62 years. This itself shows that petitioners were treated as teacher. Thus, they have a valuable legal right to continue up to 65 years as per amendment in the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Ardhivarshiki Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1967 (Amended by notification No. 20/2011 w.e.f. 6th May, 2011 (hereinafter called as Sanshodhan Adhiniyam). This notification is filed as Annexure P/3.

5. Shri Amit Bansal, Dy.G.A. for respondent- State, relied on various paragraphs of the return. By placing reliance on various definitions of teacher mentioned in Sashodhan Adhiniyam, it is contended that cases of the petitioners are not covered under the definition of such teachers who have been permitted to be continued till 65 years of age. He prayed for dismissal of the petitions. No other points is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The petitioners have relied on recruitment rules and executive instructions. This is trite that executive instructions issued prior in time looses its significance on issuance of statutory rules on the subject. In the Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, the definitions of teacher are given. Thus, executive instructions issued prior to issuance of Sanshodhan Adhiniyam have lost their complete shine. Putting it differently, whether or not petitioners are teachers must be examined on the anvil of definition of teacher given in Sanshodhan Adhiniyam.

8. In the present case, the executive instructions were issued prior to issuance of Sanshodhan Adhiniyam and therefore, it cannot be said that by issuance of executive instructions the respondents intended to supplement the Sanshodhan Adhiniyam. For this reason, the judgments cited by Shri Sharma, aforesaid, cannot be accepted. I find support in my view from : (2006) 5 SCC 386 (K.P. Sudhakaran and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.).

9. I find that the questions involved in this case are no more res integra. In 2012 (1) MPLJ 386 (Sikandar Sabana Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.) this