H. NABACHANDRA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Arunkumar, lear-ned Advocate for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 676 of 2016 as well as Mr. A. Bimol, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 722 of 2016 and Ms. Babita Th., learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 766 of 2016. Also heard Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Tapan Sharma, learned counsel for the RIMS respondent as well as Mr. S. Suresh, learned CGC for the Union respondents.

(2.) Since there are certain common issues running through these 3 (three) writ petitions, these have been taken up and heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. On conclusion of the hearing on 24.03.2017, the judgement was dictated in the Court but could not be completed, hence continued on 27.03.2017. The corrected transcript of the judgment is being made available after three days of the pronouncement of the judgment.

(3.) W.P.(C) No. 676 of 2016 has been filed by 4 (four) petitioners who are presently working as Professors in the RIMS and claim to possess all the requisite qualifications and experience prescribed by the relevant recruitment rules for appointment to the post of Director (RIMS). The petitioners of this writ petition state that in a reply received on 17th July 2016 to an RTI application filed, the petitioners came to know of the relevant recruitment rules for the post of Director, RIMS. As per the aforesaid recruitment rules for the post of Director, the upper age limit for direct recruitment has been fixed at 50 years, relaxable for Government servants/RIMS employees and specially qualified candidates. The said recruitment rules provide the tenure of service as 5 years inclusive of 1 (one) year probation. The petitioners say that the said RTI application was filed after the respondent no. 1 issued the advertisement on 24.06.2015 for filling up the post of Director in which the upper age limit was fixed at 50 years relaxable for Government servants/RIMS officers and specially qualified candidates. However, the age of retirement of the post of Director has been shown to be 62 years which is stated to be as per existing recruitment rules. The petitioners contend that though all the petitioners were otherwise eligible for applying for the said post of Director, in view of the provision fixing the age of retirement of the post of Director at 62 years, which according to the petitioners was contrary to the rules applicable at that time to be 65 years, the petitioners challenged the said advertisement dated 24.06.2015 by filing a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 617 of 2015, after the petitioners failed to get any positive response from the authority concerned for correction of the age of superannuation of Director. The petitioners took the specific plea in the said writ petition that the age of superannuation of the post of Director cannot be 62 years but 65 years. This Court while issuing notice in the said writ petition W.P.(C) No. 617 of 2015 passed an order on 30.07.2015 holding that the petitioners had been able to make out a prima facie case for passing an interim order in their favour and passed the interim order to the effect that if any of the petitioners apply for appointment to the post of Director (RIMS) within the stipulated time, their case shall not be rejected merely on the ground that they had crossed the age limit and/or reached 62 years which is the age of retirement mentioned in the advertisement. The order dated 30.07.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 617 of 2015 is reproduced herein below as this would provide the backdrop of the issues involved in these writ petitions and for better appreciation of these issues. Accordingly, the same is reproduced herein below :