MEERA UDAYSHANKER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Specialist Doctor working in the second respondent-Port Trust as Paediatrician as Senior Deputy Medical Officer. She was to retire on 30.04.2011. THErefore, she applied for extension of her service from 60 to 62 years as there was shortage of Specialists in Paediatric Department in the second respondent-Port Trust. Her request was favourably considered by the Chairman / second respondent who recommended the extension through letter dated 05.04.2011 to the first respondent. THE said recommendation was also accepted and the first respondent by an order dated 29.04.2011 agreed to extend the service of the petitioner for a period of six months only. However, the extension was not given effect by the second respondent. THErefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus.

(2.) THE second respondent filed a counter stating that the retirement age in the second respondent service is 60 and as the petitioner was to retire on 30.04.2011, though her request was considered initially, it was rejected based on the representation of the junior doctors and some organisations. Further, it is submitted that on 10.06.2011 the request for extension was rejected by the second respondent and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous.

(3.) MR.Sathya Narayana Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that already a Paediatrician is working in the Port Trust and therefore, it is incorrect to state that no Paediatrician is available in the second respondent-Port Trust and that the rejection order was passed on 10.06.2001. Therefore, the petitioner has to only file a Writ Petition challenging the said order dated 10.06.2011. In view of that the writ petition is not maintainable.