ORDER P. Venkatarama Reddi, J

1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, the correct age of retirement of the teaching staff employed in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam-run Educational Institutions is in issue.

2. The petitioners seek a declaration that the provisions of A.P. Education (Amendment) Act No. 17 of 1993 by which the age of superannuation of the staff in aided private educational institutions was prescribed at 58 years does not apply to the colleges run by the Management of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (for short 'TTD'). The proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education and the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Cuddapah in July, 1993 intimating the Managements of the aided private, Junior and Degree Colleges including T.T.D. Colleges that the age of retirement was 58 years and, therefore, the teachers who were continuing in service on the date of commencement of ordinance (which was later replaced by the Act) should be retired from service with effect from 31-7-1993 are incidentally under challenge. The petitioners seek a direction to continue them upto the completion of the age of 60 years.

3. By virtue of interim relief granted by this Court, the petitioners have continued in service beyond the age of 58 years and some of them have demitted their office on completing the age of 60 years during the pendency of these Writ Petitions.

4. It is not in dispute that these petitioners were paid and are being paid salaries from T.T.D. funds though the grant-in-aid was not released by the State Government for the period of service beyond the age of 58 years. So far as such petitioners who have retired, the relief now sought for is to extend them the pensionary benefits on the footing that they were legitimately entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. In other words, the petitioners want the qualifying service for the purpose of pension to be counted upto the age of 60 years. Some of the petitioners are continuing in service even today by virtue of the interim relief granted by this Court.

5. Section 78A and 78B were introduced in the AP. Education Act by A P. Act 17 of 1993 bearing the title 'Andhra Pradesh Education (Amendment) Act, 1993.' Section 78A in so far as it is relevant reads as follows :

"78A.(1) Every teacher or member of the non-teaching staff employed in any aided private educational institution, not belonging to last grade service, shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight years :

Provided that a teacher or a member of the non-teaching staff aforesaid, who has already attained the age of fifty-eight years and continuing in service on the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Education (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993, shall retire on the afternoon of the last day of the month of the commencement of the said Ordinance."

Section 78B reads thus :

"78B.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any orders issued by the Government for the payment of pension to the employees of the aided private Junior and Degree Colleges before the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Education (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993, such employees including those in the last grade service who attained the age of superannuation as specified in Section 78A shall be entitled to pension with effect from 1st November, 1992 in accordance with such separate rules as may be made in that behalf.

(2) A teacher or a member in any aided private Junior and Degree College who continues in service beyond the age of fifty eight years for any reason shall be entitled to pension with effect from 1st November, 1992 in accordance with such separate rules as may be made in that behalf.

(3) The provisions of this Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.''

6. The Statement of Objects and Reasons discloses that the legislature by making a provision governing the age of superannuation of teaching and non-teaching staff of the private aided colleges wanted to supply an omission by which the enabling provisions contained in the respective University Acts for prescribing the age of superannuation were repealed by a.p. act no.28 of 1987. It is also recited in the Statement of Objects and Reasons that the age of superannuation in respect of members of the teaching staff in the affiliated colleges was fixed on par with Government employees by way of Regulations made under the relevant provisions of the respective University Acts which were continued upto 1987. The Statement of Objects and Reasons further discloses that the Legislature wanted to extend the benefit of pension rules applicable to the Government servants, to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the aided private educational institutions with effect from 1-11-1992 and at the same time, the Legislature intended to equate the age of superannuation to be on par with the Government employees.

7. It may be noticed that the Amendment Act has overriding effect in the sense that the provisions contained in any other law inconsistent with the provisions of the Amendment Act will have to yield to the said amended provisions of the A.P. Education Act.

8. Before proceeding further, it may be noticed that under Section 37A of Sri Venkateswara University Act, 1954, the State Government was conferred with the power to make regulations regarding the classification, methods of recruitment, conditions of service including pay and allowances and discipline of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Affiliated Colleges and the Oriental Colleges. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 37(A) of Sri Venkateswara University Act, 1954, the State Government has been issuing notifications prescribing the age of retirement of the teaching staff employed in the private affiliated colleges right from 1980. The last of the notifications was issued in G.O.Ms.No.36, Education (J) Department, dated 9-1-1985. The State Government framed a Regulation under Section 36A of Sri Venkateswara University Act, 1954 to the effect that every member of the teaching staff in the private affiliated colleges shall retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years. The deletion of Section 37A from Sri Venkateswara University Act and the corresponding provisions in other University Acts by Act XXVIII of 1987 had created a vaccum in the statutory prescription of the age of superannuation as already noted and it was for this reason the amendments to the a.p. education act were introduced in the year 1993.

9. The sheet-anchor of the petitioners' contentions is based on the proviso to Rule 9 to the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Employees Service Rules, 1989 (for short "TTD Service Rules'). These rules were framed under A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act. Rule 9 reads-

"9. Appointment and method of recruitment :

(i) The method of recruitment for appointment, qualifications and the age prescribed for various posts shall be as specified against each post in Annexure- II to these rules :

Provided that in case of teaching staff of Educational Institutions affiliated to any University or any Government as the case may be, in respect of qualifications, age, method of recruitment, pay and allowances, vacation, leave salary, travelling allowance and age of retirement shall apply."

Rule 12 may also be noticed -

"12. Superannuation :-- The age of superannuation of every employee of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams shall be regulated by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulations of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (Act 23 of 1984) amended from time to time.''

10. The contention of the petitioners is that the proviso to Rule 9 of the TTD Service Rules, 1989 is a specific rule dealing with the methods of recruitment, conditions of service and age of retirement of the teaching staff of educational institutions affiliated to the University and therefore Rule 12 of TTD Employees Service Rules, 1989, which is a general Rule governing the employees of the TTD has no applicability so far as the age of retirement of the petitioners is concerned.

11. It is submitted that the age of retirement of the teaching staff as per the Rules and Regulations of the University is 60 years and, therefore, by virtue of the proviso to Rule 9, the petitioners are entitled to continue in service till the completion of the age of 60 years. We proceed on the basis that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Service Rules 1989 governs the case of the petitioners but not Rule 12. Even then we find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Assuming that the age of retirement of the University teachers is 60 years, we do not think that the same age of retirement shall be applied to the petitioners as well. The Regulations framed by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 37A of Sri Venkateswara University Act prescribed the age of retirement of the teaching and non-teaching staff employed in the private aided affiliated colleges as 58 years. By act 17 of 1993, the same age of superannuation was continued specifically in relation to the staff of aided private educational institutions. By doing so, as already observed, the Legislature wanted to fill up the vacuum created by the deletion of Section 37A of Sri Venkateswara University Act and other corresponding provisions enabling the Government to fix the age of superannuation. Thus, by act 17 of 1993, a statutory sanction was intended to be accorded for the age of superannuation of teaching and non-teaching staff of private aided colleges. Sections 78 A and 78B introduced by a.p. act 17 of 1993 have overriding effect over other laws including the TTD Service Rules adverted to above. Thus, viewed from any angle, the petitioners have no right to continue in service beyond 58 years.

12. Confronted with the over-riding effect given to the amendments introduced by a.p. act 17 of 1993, the learned senior Counsel - Mr. E. Manohar appearing for some of the petitioners contended that the said provisions have no application to the T.T.D. Colleges. The learned Counsel submits that the T.T.D. Educational Institutions including the colleges cannot be regarded as private educational institutions as they do not satisfy the definition of 'private institution' as per Section 2(35) of the A.P. Education Act. 'Private Institution' as defined by Section 2(35) of the A.P. Education Act as follows :

"Section 2(35): 'Private institution' means an institution imparting education or training, established and administered or maintained by any body of persons and recognised as educational institution by the Government, and includes a College, a special institution and a minority educational institution, but does not include an educational institution-

(a) established and administered or maintained by the Central Government or the State Government or any local authority ;

(b) established and administered by any University established by law; or

(c) giving, providing or imparting only religious instruction, but not any other instruction."

It is contended that the TTD institutions were not established nor administered nor maintained by any body of persons, in-as-much as the TTD is a body created under statute. We do not find any substance in this argument. The definition is an inclusive one and it includes 'college'. 'College' is defined under Section 2(11) of the AP. Education Act as follows:

"Section 2(11) : 'College' means a college including a medical college established or maintained and administered by, or affiliated to or associated with or recognised by, any University in the State and includes a junior college recognised by or affiliated to the Andhra Pradesh Board of Intermediate Education."

Thus, a college affiliated to or recognised by a University falls within the purview of Section 2(11) of the A.P. Education Act. That being so, there is no difficulty in bringing the TTD-run colleges within the fold of private institutions as defined by Section 2(35) read with Section 2(11) of the AP. Education Act. Such colleges run by TTD do not obviously fall within the exclusionary clause contained in Section 2(35) of the A.P. Education Act If the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is accepted, it will give rise to a situation of the TTD institutions not falling under any of the Educational Institutions as specified in Section 19 of the A.P. Education Act. It would certainly lead to incongruous and unintended results, having regard to the fact that the TTD run colleges are indisputably receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government and they are functioning within the frame work of the A.P. Education Act and the Rules. Viewed from any angle, it is difficult to sustain the argument of the learned senior Counsel that Section 78A of the A.P. Education (Amendment) Act has no application to the TTD run colleges.

13. The next endeavour made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is to impress on us that Section 78A of the A.P. Education (Amendment) Act should be 'read down' so as to exclude from its purview the private educational institutions managed by TTD authorities. It is contended that the whole object of the amendment Act was to extend the pensionary benefits applicable to the Government employees and it was in that context the superannuation age of 58 years was prescribed so as to maintain parity as between the Government employees and the employees of the private aided educational institutions. It is submitted that as far as TTD is concerned, it is already governed by the pension Rules applicable to the Government servants and, therefore the integrated scheme of applying the pension rules as well as the retirement age governing the Government employees as contemplated by Section 78A and 78B of the AP. Education (Amendment) Act will not be applicable to the TTD Educational Institutions. We are unable to accept this contention. It is not disputed that as per the pension rules applicable to the TTD Staff, the qualifying service for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits is 58 years only. The qualifying service was never reckoned for the TTD Staff including the teaching staff upto the age of 60 years. That being so, the newly introduced provisions viz., 78A and 78B of the A.P. Education (Amendment) Act even if they are applied to the Staff of TTD Educational Institutions - as they ought to be, do not make a radical departure from the rules governing the pension of the TTD Staff. The obvious intention of the Legislature was to prescribe an uniform age of retirement for the teaching and non-teaching staff employed in aided private educational institutions. There is no particular reason why the institutions already following the State Government pension rules, according to which the qualifying service is to be counted upto the age of 58 years, should be given a different treatment from other aided private educational institutions. The avowed objective of the Act to prescribe the age of retirement at 58 years uniformly by means of legislative provision will be practically defeated, if we read down the applicability of Sections 78A and 78B of the AP. Education (Amendment) Act in the manner in which it has been suggested by the teamed Counsel for the petitioners. The principle of reading down essentially falls within the domain of purposive interpretation which the Courts resort to in order to effectuate the purpose of the legislation and to avoid unintended results. That contingency does not arise herein at all and, therefore, we find no warrant in invoking the principle of reading down.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the writ petitions and the writ petitions are all dismissed without costs.

15. However, it is brought to our notice by some of the learned Counsel that in view of the pendency of the writ petitions, the pensionary benefits as due under act 17 of 1993 read with the rules framed under Section 78B of the A.P. Education (amendment) Act have not been extended to them. We direct the TTD authorities to take immediate steps to process the pension papers of the petitioners in accordance with the said rules and the State Government and the concerned officials of the Education Department should take necessary steps for fixation and release of pension as per the rules without avoidable delay.