J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) The post of Incharge, Training, in Regional Resource Centre, Punjab University, was advertised in 'The Tribune' dated 18th of May, 1980, vide Annexure P.1. The petitioner applied for the post after his retirement from the Army as he fulfilled all the necessary qualification. He was offered the appointment as Incharge, Training Centre, vide letter dated 11th of June, 1981, copy Annexure P.2. According to the said letter, the appointment was purely temporary terminable at any time without any notice and co-terminus with the tenure of the scheme. The scheme of the Regional Resource Centre was extended upto 31st March, 1990. It has been stated at the bar on behalf of the University that it has been further extended upto 19.9.1995. Vide letter dated 17th of February, 1987, copy Annexure P.5, the petitioner's services were terminated as he had already passed the age of superannuation (60 years). The said order inter alia, reads as under:- "Conveying that since Major Joginder Singh, Incharge (Training) is long past the age of superannuation (60 years) he may be relieved of the purely temporary appointment held by him in the Regional Resource Centre, forthwith." It is this order which has been challenged in this Writ Petition primarily on the ground that the services of the petitioner could not be terminated as long as the scheme was in force which was extended upto the year 1990. According to the petitioner, his appointment vide Annexure P.2 was co-terminus with the tenure of the scheme and, therefore, the question of the age of superannuation was irrelevant in view of the appointment letter. The petitioner has also filed a letter of the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare (Department of Education), New Delhi, dated 9th of August, 1979, copy Annexure P.3 issued to all the Directors/Coordinators of S.R.Cs. and others on the subject of "Financial and Staffing pattern in S.R.Cs." According to the said letter, clause IV provide while making appointment of staff, it is not necessary that rules and procedure prevalent in Government regarding qualification, age limit etc. should be followed. But it is expected that appropriate procedure/guidelines will be prepared for the recruitment of the staff and that the selection would ordinarily be made through duly constituted selection committees.
(2.) The stand taken by the Panjab University in the return filed on behalf of the Registrar is that the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary terminable at any time without any notice and co-terminus with the tenure of the scheme. According to the University, the expression "co-terminus with the tenure of the scheme" relates to the duration of the scheme at that lime i.e. 1st of November, 1978, to 31st of October, 1981, and nothing more. Since the appointment was purely temporary and could be terminated at any time without any notice and thus the petitioner had no right to continue. Secondly, the post is governed by the provisions of Regulation 17.1 (at page 159 of the Punjab University Calendar, Volume I) (1986) which reads as under:- "All whole-time members of the non-leaching staff except Class 'C' employees, shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years." According to the return, even for the non-teaching staff of the University, the age of retirement is sixty years. Admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner as given was 8th of February, 1924. His services were rightly terminated on attaining the age of superannuation.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order terminating his services was wholly wrong and illegal as the termination was co-terminus with the scheme as per the appointment letter dated 11th of June, 1981. According to the learned counsel, the age in such a case was immaterial as the person was already a retired hand and even at the time of appointment, the consideration of age etc. was relaxed and that being so, the age of superannuation could not be made applicable to terminate his services. In support of his contention, he referred to Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 ; and State of Haryana and others v. Rajindra Sareen, 1972 Services Law Reporter 112. The contention was also raised that the Regulation 17.1 reproduced above was not applicable in view of Rule 18 of the Rules which provides as under: "Except where otherwise expressly provided, nothing contained in the foregoing Regulations shall apply to- (a) ...................... (b) persons re-employed after superannuation or those holding temporary or contract appointments; (c)...................................................... Thus, argued the learned counsel, the age of superannuation was wholly irrelevant to terminate the services of the petitioner. He also submitted that the appointment will be deemed to be contractual as contemplated by the above said Regulation 18 and hence the petitioner has a right to continue till the extension of the scheme upto the year 1990. The employment, according to the learned counsel, was outside the ambit of the rule known as Conditions of Service of University Employees and, therefore, the same could not be employed to terminate the services of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-University submitted that according to the letter of appointment itself, the appointment was purely temporary terminable at any time without any notice; and, therefore the University was competent to terminate the services even during the tenure of the scheme. In any case, the rules applicable to the University employees do provide sufficient guidelines as to when a person is to retire from service. Simply because the age was relaxed at the time of appointment being a temporary job, did not mean that the petitioner could continue till the scheme comes to an end even though the petitioner may become old. It was argued that if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, then he is entitled to continue irrespective of any age and as at present, the scheme has been further extended up to the year 1995. Argument was also raised that the petitioner never relied on Regulation 18 in his writ petition and, therefore, no argument could be allowed to be raised on that ground.;