DEBIDAS BASU Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this rule, the petitioner was a Director of the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science for more than 11 years. He challenged the order by a writ as the period of service was not extended beyond the age of 63 years. By a resolution dated 15th April, 1979, the Council of IACS extended the term of service of the petitioner of Director for another year till 31st Aug., 1980 i.e. for one year even after superannuation. the said resolution specifically provided that no further extension would be granted to the petitioner. In the meeting dated 26th June, 1979 in which the petitioner was present, this resolution was confirmed. The petitioner know from the very beginning that his service would not be extended after 31st Aug., 1980 and he moved this Court and obtained the present rule on 29th Aug., 1980. On 15th April, 1979 it was further resolved that the council further authorised the President to take necessary steps to utilise the service of Dr. D. Basu as a Professor after he relinquished the position of Director of the Association. Initially the Petitioner got an interim order but the said order was ultimately vacated. The petitioner did not accept the offer of the Council to utilise his service as Professor.

(2.) In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent to the main petition, it is stated that the petitioner has enjoyed the highest term as a Director, that is, 11 years and 8 months and attained the age of superannuation and he was still given one extension under bye-law 34(c) of the bye-law after the age of superannuation being 62 years. The order is a valid order passed In accordance with law. This is a main point of the affidavit filed by the respondent. The reply was filed by which the petitioner reiterated the statement made in the petition

(3.) Mr. A.P. Chatterjee, Standing Counsel on behalf of the petitioner argued four grounds in support of his contention. Firstly that bye law 34(c) is ultra vires of Art. 14 of the Constitution Secondly, it is argued that non-extension of the period upto the age of 65 years was made without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and therefore it is bad in law. Thirdly, it is argued that all the Directors and Professors would have to retire at the age of 65 years. The petitioner has legitimate expectation Therefore he was deprived of the extension The petitioner was given extension upto 65 years as professor. Therefore it amounts to a reduction of rank and therefore it is bad.