RAJENDRA SINGH PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.4.2012, whereby he was directed to retire on attaining 62 years of age. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to continue till 65 years of age.

(2.) SHRI Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed pursuant to his selection through PSC as a Professor. By placing reliance on appointment order dated 29.2.1988 (Annexure P -7), it is canvassed that the petitioner was appointed because he had ten years experience as per the advertisement (Annexure P/5). Before joining as Principle in the Government of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner was working as Lecturer at Mujaffar Nagar (UP) w.e.f. 12th December, 1975. While working as a Lecturer at Mujaffar Nagar, the petitioner submitted his candidature for the post of Professor as per the advertisement issued by PSC (Annexure P -5). The petitioner was further promoted as Principal w.e.f. 31.7.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner must be treated as "teacher" as per Fundamental Rule 56(1) and, therefore, is entitled to continue till 65 years of age.

(3.) PER Contra, Smt. Sangita Pachauri, learned Deputy Government Advocate supported the order, Annexure P -1. She submits that the services rendered elsewhere and not in Government of Madhya Pradesh cannot be taken into account for the purpose of Fundamental Rule 56(1). She further submits that the petitioner has only 19 years 2 months teaching experience in State Government service in Madhya Pradesh. By placing reliance on Fundamental Rules 56(1) and 56(1 -a), it is contended that the petitioner has less than 20 years teaching experience and, therefore, he was rightly retired at the age of 62 years.