SWATANTER KUMAR, J. - (1.) Centre for Public Interest Litiga ion (CPIL), egistered Society stated to have been formed for the purposes of conducting public interest litigation in an organised manner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of quo warranto alleging that the respondents no.1 and 2 have illegally permitted Prof. P. Venugopal, respondent no.3, Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'the Director') to continue against the post in complete and venton disregard of the statutory regulations as he is being permitted to continue in that post beyond the age of 62 years as well as he is occupying the post of Cardio Thoracic Vascular Surgeon since his appointment as Director in July 2003.
(2.) The Society claims that it has eminent lawyers as members of its Executive Committee and they are generally interested as public spirited professionals to take legal steps in accordance with law to ensure that appointments to high offices where the interest of the public at large is directly affected, is not done in a manner contrary to law. The reports were published in a weekly 'Tehelka' dated 25.2.2006 and 'The Hindustan Times' dated 29.2.2006 despite which corrective steps were not taken by the official respondents resulting in the petitioners filing the present writ petition.
(3.) As per the averments made in the writ petition, somewhere in April'03, the Institute had notified the vacancy of the Director and had asked for nominations from different institutions. Number of candidates from all over the country including eminent professors from within the Institute had submitted their applications and out of the names received, the body of the Institute had recommended Dr. Venugopal's name for appointment to the post of the Director. Vide letter dated 3.7.2003, the Government of India conveyed the approval of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet for appointment to the post of Director for a period of 5 years and until further orders and permitted to him to continue as Professor in the Department of Cardio Thoracic and Vascular Surgery. In furtherance to its approval, the Institute issued a memorandum of the same date containing the appointment of Dr. Venugopal for a period of 5 years. The Director was at that time already 61 years of age and in terms of the letter of his appointment, he would continue to hold the job till 66 years of age. This was not permissible as he would have attained the age of 62 years on 6.7.2004 and his continuation thereafter would be in blatant disregard to the statutory regulations, as no person could continue in the employment of the Institute after attaining the age of 62 years. It is also the case of the petitioner that a specific request was made by the respondent no.2 seeking an amendment of Regulation 30 of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'AIIMS Regulations') seeking extension in service of faculty members on case to case basis upto the age of 64 years which was not granted and vide letter dated 15.7.2002, the Department of Personnel and Training had declined such a request. Acting upon the said advise, two other Professors who had retired and were re-employed for a period of 2 years beyond their normal age of superannuation of 62 years, their services were also terminated. Despite these clear instructions and the relevant rules, respondent no.3, the Director of the Institute was permitted to continue which appointment and continuation is being challenged in the present writ petition on different grounds.;