Health India (Registered) vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 2072 Del

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. The issue raised in this petition which is filed in the nature of public interest litigation relates to the appointment of the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (for short 'the Institute'). In fact the petitioner has challenged orders dated 21st April, 1999 and 19th June, 2001 vide which the tenure of the respondent NO.3 as Director of the Institute was extended twice. These extensions are challenged by the petitioner alleging that the same are contrary tot he provisions contained in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as Rules and Regulations framed under the said Act. Before we embark upon the controversy which is raised in this petition, it would be apposite to have background material which shall enable us to appreciate the controversy more appropriately.

2. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act is a Central enactment which came into existence in the year 1956, with the objectives to develop patterns of teaching in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education in all its branches so as to demonstrate a high standard of medical education to all medical colleges and other allied institutions in India and to bring together in one place educational facilities of the highest order for the training of personnel in all important branches of health activity as also to attain self-sufficiency in postgraduate medical education. It is one of the premier institutions in the country.

3. As per Section of the Act, the Institute shall be a body corporate by the name 'All India Institute of Medical Sciences', having perpetual succession and a common seal. Section 4 provides for composition of the Institute and stipulates the persons who would be members thereof and includes the Director of the Institute as ex-officio member. Section 10 provides that there shall be a Governing Body of the Institute which shall be the executive committee of the Institute and shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions as the Institute may, by regulations made in this behalf, confer or impose upon it. In addition, the Institute may constitute as many Standing Committees and as many adhoc committees as it thinks fit for exercising any power or discharging any function of the Institute or for inquiring into, or reporting or advising upon, any matter which the Institute may refer to them [Section 10(5) ]. Section 11 provides for the Staff of the Institute and reads as under:

"11. Staff of the Institute

(1) There shall be a chief executive officer of the Institute who shall be designated as the Director of the Institute and shall, subject to such rules as may be made by the Central Government in this behalf, be appointed by the Institute:

Provided that the first Director of the Institute shall be appointed by the Central Government.

(2) The Director shall act the Secretary to the Institute as well as the Governing Body.

(3) The Director shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions as may be prescribed by regulations or as may be delegated to him by the Institute or the President of the Institute or by the Governing Body or the Chairman of the Governing Body.

(4) Subject to such rules as may be made by the Central Government in this behalf, the Institute may appoint such number of other officers and employees as may be necessary for the exercise of its powers and discharge of its functions and may determine the designations and grades of the such other officers and employees.

(5) The Director and other officers and employees of the Institute shall be entitled to such salary and allowances and shall be governed by such conditions of service in respect of leave, pension, provident fund and other matters as may be prescribed by regulations made in this behalf."

4. Section 28 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. Sub-section (2) thereof specifically provides for the matters on which such rules can be framed and Clauses (c) & (f) provide for framing of rules in respect of the staff and are to the following effect:

"(c) The conditions of service of, the procedure to be followed by, and the manner of filling vacancies among, members of the Institute;

(f) The number of officers and employees that may be appointed by the Institute and the manner of such appointment."

5. Under Section 29 of the Act, the Institute is given power to make Regulations, of course with the previous approval of the Central Government. The subject matter in respect of which such Regulations can be framed are provided therein and the relevant clauses for our purposes are Clauses (b) and (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 29 which are as follows:

"(b) The manner of constituting the Governing Body and standing and adhoc committees, the term of office of, and the manner of filling vacancies among, the members of the Governing Body and standing and adhoc committees;

(f) The tenure of office, salaries and allowances and other conditions of services of the Director and other officers and employees of the Institute including teachers appointed by the Institute."

6. The Central Government has framed Rules on 3rd March, 1958 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 28 of the Act which are called 'All India Institute of Medical Sciences Rules'. Rule 7 relates to creation of posts and appointment thereon and Sub-rule (3) specifies that appointment to the post of Director shall be made by the Institute with the prior approval of the Government.

7. The Institute has also framed Regulations in exercise of its powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Act. These Regulations were framed with the previous approval of the Central Government and are called 'All India Institute of Medical Sciences Regulations, 1958'. These Regulations were notified on 15th October, 1958.

8. Regulation 24 deals with qualification for appointment and is in the following terms:

"24. Qualification for appointment:

(1) Age, experience and other qualifications for appointment to a post under the Institute shall be prescribed by the appointing authority keeping in view the qualifications and experience prescribed by the Central Government for similar posts before applications of candidate are called for subject to the conditions that non-medical personnel shall not be appointed to the post of "Director".

(2) The Director shall, in filling vacancies in posts and services, either by direct recruitment or by promotion, under the Institute, make such reservations, in favor of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as may be made by the Central Government from time to time in filling vacancies in posts and services under the Central Government."

9. Regulation 30 provides for the age of superannuation of the employees of the Institute. Sub-Regulations (1) & (2) thereof being relevant are quoted below:

"(1) The age of superannuation of the employees of the Institute other than members of the teaching faculty and class IV employees shall be 58 years. Provided that the non-faculty employees may be granted extension of service or re-employment up to the age of 60 years under very special circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing on the merits of each such case and subject to physical fitness and continued efficiency of the employee concerned.

(2) The age of superannuation of the members of the teaching faculty and class IV employees shall be 60 years; provided that the services of the members of the teaching faulty may be retained up to the age of 62 years in case of persons who are exceptionally talented for reasons to be recorded in writing on the merit of each such case and subject to physical fitness and continued efficiency of the person concerned."

10. Further, Regulation 30A provided for the terms of office of Director and makes the following reading:

"30A Terms of office of Director:

Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the Institute shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, have the right to terminate the term of office of Director at any time before the expiry of his term by giving him a notice of not less than three months in writing or three month's salary and allowances in lieu thereof. The Director shall also have the right to relinquish his office at any time before the expiry of the fixed term by giving to the Institute a notice of not less than three months in writing."

11. After the constitution of the Institute by the aforesaid Act in the year 1956, Dr. B.B. Dixit was appointed as the first Director on 14th April, 1956 who continued as such till 1st September, 1964. There have been successive Directors thereafter. The present incumbent, namely, Dr. P.K. Dave is the 8th Director of the Institute. He was initially appointed as the Director of the Institute on 1st October, 1996 for a period up to 30th June, 1999. The letter dated 1st October, 1996 of the Government of India conveying the approval states:

"I am directed to convey the approval of the Central Government under Rule 7 (3) of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Rules, 1958 to the appointment of Prof. P.K. Dave, Professor & Head of the Department of Orthopaedics and Medical Superintendent, AIIMS as Director, AIIMS, New Delhi, for a period up to 30.06.1999 i.e. till he attains the age of 60 years."

12. Thereafter vide order dated 21st April, 1999 the tenure of Dr. Dave was extended "for a period of 5 years from the date he assumed charge of the post or till he attains the age of 62 years, whichever event occurs earlier". This order is under challenge in this writ petition.

13. Dr. Dave, respondent No.3, completed the age of 62 year on 30th June, 2001. In these circumstances another order dated 19th June, 2001, which is also impugned in this writ petition, was issued by the Central Government extending his tenure for a further period of two years beyond 30th June, 2001 up to the age of 64 years which is to be completed on 30th June, 2003.

14. These extensions are challenged on three counts, namely, (1) the Central Government while extending the tenure was violated the procedure laid down for appointment of a Director; (2) there could not have been any extension beyond the age of 60 years which is the age of superannuation of administrative staff and in any case beyond 62 years which is the upper age limit of academic staff; and (3) the appointment or extension has to be by the Institute Body only which appoints the Director and, therefore, it was not within the powers of the Central Government ti give the extension. the Central Government can only give approval after the Institute Body appoints a person. Therefore, extension by the Central Government vide impugned order is clearly without jurisdiction.

15. Before referring to these arguments in details and dealing with them, it may be pointed out at this stage that the respondents have seriously challenged the locus standi of the petitioner to file such a petition as public interest litigation. The respondent No. 3 has even filed CM No. 11506/02 to this effect challenging the credentials of the petitioner society and further alleging that the present petition was filed for oblique purpose and motives; the sole intention being to drag the name of respondent No. 3 into the present litigation unnecessarily.

16. We may state that no doubt when this petition came up for hearing for the first time on 18th September, 2002, we had observed that keeping in view the important question as regards interpretation of AIIMS Act and the Rules and Regulations framed therein as regards appointment of Director of the Institute, we would like to hear the petition. The question about the locus standi of the petitioner at that time did neither surface nor was it in contemplation when the said order was passed. The petition is not filed by any person allegedly aggrieved by the extension given to respondent No.3 as Director but by the petitioner society as public interest litigation. Therefore, notwithstanding our observations in the order dated 18th September, 2002, it is imperative to deal with the question of locus standi of the petitioner in filing the petition in public interest, more so when the locus standi is seriously challenged by the respondents. We would, therefore, deal with this issue at the outset before proceedings on the merits of the petition.

17. In para 1 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that this petition was preferred in public interest for issuance of a writ of quo warranto and a writ of mandamus against the continuance of respondent No.3 in the high post of Director of the Institute as the extensions given to him beyond the age of 60 years are wholly unwarranted and ultravires the Rules. In para 3 it is stated that the petitioner came to know about the illegal 'extensions' given to respondent No.3, through news items which appeared in several newspapers and also reports regarding the mismanagement of the Institute which have ultimate bearing on the health care of the patients and also coming to the Institute for treatment of various ailments. In para 2 of the petition the petitioner was alleged that it is an organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act and is engaged in propagating health awareness among the people of this country. It is further averred that it has undertaken large number of activities for improvement of health of people and community. There are several doctors who are founder members of the society. In the rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3, the petitioner has attempted to spell out the different activities it has undertaken from time to time.

18. As per the petitioner's own showing it is a registered society which is engaged in propagating health awareness among the people of the country and have several doctors as founder members of this society. It cannot be, therefore, presumed that such an organisation came to know of the alleged illegal extensions given to the respondent No.3 only through news items which appeared some time before the filing of the present writ petition. It may be mentioned that the case of the petitioner is that the age of retirement of the Director of the Institute, which is an administrative post, is 60 years and, therefore, the respondent No.3 was wrongly given first extension vide letter dated 21st April, 1999 up to the age of 62 years which alleged illegality has been repeated by second extension dated 19th June, 2001. The petitioner however did not take any action when first extension was given more than three years ago. This order was even allowed to be worked out and second extension was also given almost one and a half years ago. Why it filed the present petition after almost three and a half years of the first extension and approximately one and half years after the second extension is something which is intriguing. It is not palatable that such an organisation which has many doctors even as founder members would not be aware of the extensions given to respondent No.3 and would come to know of the same only through newspaper reports. The explanation is clearly unconvincing. The filing of such a petition at this point of time therefore, when only few months are left for respondent No.3 to complete his extended tenure as per the extension provided vide letter dated 19th June, 2001 throws doubts on the bonafides of the petitioner in filing this writ petition. It is shrouded in mystery and lends credence to the doubts expressed by the respondents in questioning the purpose and motive of this petition.

19. Furthermore, although the petitioner has alleged that it is a public spirited organisation and has undertaken large number of activities for improvement of health of people and the community, admittedly nowhere it is alleged that the petitioner has ever taken up such legal causes of public interest by filing such petitions earlier. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to dismiss this writ petition sustaining the preliminary submission of the respondents about the locus standi of the petitioner to file this petition.

20. We should not forget that this writ petition is in the nature of quo warranto. Normally, a person aggrieved should file such a petition challenging extension in turn given to the respondent No.3. A stranger, normally, is not entitled to file such a petition when the petition is filed after such an abnormal delay at this juncture, it creates doubt in the bona fides of making such a petition. In Ranjit Prasad v. Union of India and Ors. the Supreme Court observed that a mere busy body who has no interest cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court. To the same effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Swami v. Union of India and Ors.

and Sarjoini Ramaswamy (Mrs.) v. Union of India and Ors. . In the former case, the Supreme Court observed that ordinarily, it is the person aggrieved and directly affected who must week the relief himself unless disabled from doing so for a good reasons which permits someone else to seek the relief on his behalf. In that situation also the claim is to be made in substance by the person affected even though the form be different and it is so stated expressly Therein writ petitions challenging proceedings for removal of a Supreme Court Judge filed by an MP, who was also an advocate claiming to be close to the Judge were dismissed as not maintainable and the argument to the effect that the petitions raised important question of law was brushed aside observing:

"The points raised in these petitions in the context of Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 124 and the law enacted under Article 124 are bound to arise only in the context of a holder of the high office of a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court and at a time when he faces proceedings for his removal so that the decision thereon is bound to affect the interest of the Judge concerned. If the occasion for requiring a judicial adjudication arises in this context at a time when a particular Judge is facing proceedings for his removal from office as in the present case, the reason advanced by counsel for not even impleading him as a party in the petition appears to be tenuous. Anyone facing such a proceeding and wanting to challenge it has to do it himself. It is not possible to predict the outcome of the decisions on merits of the points raised in these petitions and, therefore, the likelihood of a conclusion adverse to the interest of the Judge being a possibility, an effective adjudication of the same in his absence is not feasible which alone is a sufficient reason to decline consideration of the points raised in the petitions in these circumstances."

21. We may notice that in a recent judgment in the case of BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India has crystallised the law relating to petitions filed as public interest litigation. It is held therein that public interest litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz. "litigation in the interest of the public". It is primarily the Judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. PIL was not meant to be adversarial in nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties and the court so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker sections of the community who were not in a position to protect their own interests. There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any foundation that public interest litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a tendency to be counterproductive. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public-spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such person who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the court for relief. There have been, in recent times, increasing instances of abuse of PIL. Therefore, there is a need of re-emphasize the parameters within which PIL can be resorted to by a petitioner and entertained by the court. The court also observed:

"Whenever the Court has interfered and given directions while entertaining PIL it has mainly been where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to court due to some disadvantage. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the courts. However, public interest litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a court of law, but a public litigation at the behest of a stranger ought not to be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden, unless the court is satisfied that there has been violation of Article 21 and the persons adversely affected are unable to approach the court."

22. Having dismissed the petition on the ground that it is not maintainable, it was not necessary for us to go into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner. However, we deem it appropriate to make certain observations on the merits of the case since we had heard the matter in some length.

23. Referring to the relevant provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations, which are already quoted above, it was the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the Director is also an "employer" of the Institute and as he belongs to administrative staff (his submission was that he ceases to be a member of faculty after his appointment as Director which is an administrative post) the age of retirement would be 60 years. Therefore, Director cannot be appointed beyond 60 years. In any case, he submitted, even if the respondent No. 3 is to be treated as member of the teaching faulty, the age of superannuation would be 62 years and thus the Director cannot continue beyond the age of 62 years. Therefore, both extensions dated 21st April, 1999 and 19th June, 2001 were illegal. Further, the Institute had itself prescribed the procedure for appointment of Director, in the meeting of Institute Body held on 28th December, 1995 which was to the following effect:

"To consider the qualification method of selection tenure, extension and service conditions for the post of Director, AIIMS, New Delhi.

AND

Appointment to the post of Director, AIIMS, New Delhi.

The Institute Body considered items 11 and 12 together. The Special Invitees and the Member-Secretary withdraw from the Meeting. A declared discussion was held. The following decisions were taken:

a) For the appointment of Director, the procedure followed in the past (inviting nominations; constitution of Special Selection Committee; consideration of nominations by the Special Selection Committee and its recommendations to the Institute Body; consideration of the Special Selection Committee recommendation by the Institute Body for the Section of a candidate for obtaining Government approval) should continue to be followed.

b) An outgoing Director would be eligible for renomination for a second term. However, no Director shall be given a second term without again going through the process mentioned in

(a) above.

c) The tenure of the Director shall continue to be 5 years provided in the Recruitment Rules. If a Director completes his tenure of 5 years before reaching the age of 60 years and therefore, on completion of a tenure of 5 years, reverts as Professor/Head of Department, he/she shall continue to draw the same salary as was last drawn while holding the office of Director.

d) The President was authorized to constitute a Special Selection Committee for the selection of a Director. The president shall give due consideration to the suggestions received from the members of the Institute Body within a week regarding the composition of the Special Selection Committee."

24. It was argued that even when an outgoing Director was to be considered for second term the entire process as mentioned therein, namely, inviting nominations; consideration of Special Selection Committee; consideration of nominations by the Special Selection Committee and its recommendation to Institute Body; consideration of the Special Selection Committee recommendation by the Institute Body for the Selection of a candidate for obtaining Government approval was to be followed mandatorily which was not done in the instant case. On the contrary, it was further submitted, instead of Institute Body undergoing the said procedure and making recommendation, it is the Central Government which suo moto took up the issue and extended the tenure of respondent No.3.

25. Refuting the aforesaid contentions, the respondents argued that the procedure prescribed is for appointment which did not apply to extension. It was submitted that post of Director was a tenure post and such tenure could be extended and the cases of extension were to be dealt with on different footing altogether. For such extension neither the age bar was applicable nor the stipulated procedure for appointment of Director was applicable. In any case, it was submitted, that the allegation of the petitioner that the extension was given by the Central Government of its own was factually incorrect inasmuch as it is the Institute Body which had taken the decision in this behalf and minutes of the meeting held on 21 August, 1996 and 19th June, 2001 were produced.

26. Statement showing the appointment of the Directors at the Institute was also produced for our perusal to contend that in the past also certain Directors had worked as such not only beyond the age of 60 years but even beyond the age of 62 years. It was mentioned that that one Dr. K.L. Wig was even appointed at the time when he was 60 years of age and his age at the time of completion of tenure was 64 years 11 months and 6 days.

27. We have gone through the minutes of the meeting of the Institute Body held on 21st August, 1996 and 19th June, 2001. The minutes of the meeting of Institute Body held on 21st August, 1996 clearly show that the Special Selection Committee was constituted which recommended the name of the respondent No.3 for appointment as Director and this was approved by the Institute Body in the following terms:

"The Institute Body resolved and approved as under:

(1) Prof. P.K. Dave be appointed as Direct of All India Institute of Medical Sciences as recommended by the Special Selection Committee.

(2) Prof. P.K. Dav's appointment will be for a period of 5 years or till he attains the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier.

(3) Prof. P.K. Dave will continue to hold the position of Professor of Orthopaedics."

28. Thus even when respondent No.3 was to be appointed as Director, in the first instance, the appointment was approved for a period of 5 years or till he attains the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier. It is a different matter that when this recommendation was sent for the approval of the Central Government, the Central Government at that time appointed him for the period till he attained the age of 60 years by appointment on 1st October, 1996. It was, however, extended vide order dated 21st April, 1999 up to the period respondent No.3 attained the age of 62 years. It is thus in conformity with the original Resolution of the Institute Body.

29. Before he was completing the age of 62 years on 30th June, 2001 as per the order dated 21st April, 1999 the Institute sent a note dated 4th May, 2001 to the Government for extension of terms of respondent No.3 as Director beyond 30th June, 2001 for a period of 2 years. Vide letter dated 13th June, 2001 the Government conveyed its approval to the Institute. We have also on record the minutes of the Institute Body meeting held on 19th June, 2001 ratifying the approval of the Government's decision extending tenure of respondent No.3 as Director of the Institute after due consideration of its previous decisions regarding appointment of Director, AIIMS. The Institute Body is the supreme body of AIIMS. When it has deliberated and ratified the approval of the Government's decision and when the Government also approved the proposal for extension of respondent No.3 as Director of the Institute for a period of 2 years, we do not find any irregularity in the extension of respondent No.3's term as Director for a period of 2 years.

30. On the question as to whether he could be given extension beyond the age of 62 years, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors. contend that as per observations contained therein, extension beyond the age of 62 years could not be given. Even learned counsel for the respondents relied upon this judgment in support of their arguments on the nature of the appointment of Director.

31. The matter regarding the nature of appointment of Director of the Institute came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. L.P. Aggarwal (supra) wherein it was held that the post of Director was a tenure post under the Recruitment Rules of the Institute. That was a case where Dr. L.P. Aggarwal who was appointed as the Director of the Institute 'for a period of five years, or till he attains the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier' vide appointment order dated 6th April, 1979 with effect from 18th February, 1979 was prematurely retired vide Resolution dated 24th November, 1980 passed by the Institute Body, that is, before he completed the age of 62 years or five years' tenure. This action was challenged by Dr. L.P. Aggarwal. The Supreme Court was, therefore, called upon to decide as to whether the incumbent of the post of Director, AIIMS can be prematurely retired before the completion of his tenure. While deciding this question in the negative, the Supreme Court observed:

"Para 16: We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court. We are not inclined to agree with the same. Under the Recruitment Rules the post of Director of the AIIMS is a tenure post. The said rules further provide the method of direct recruitment for filling the post. These service conditions make the post of Director a tenure post and as such the question of the superannuating or prematurely retiring the incumbent of the said post does not arise. The age of 62 years provided under provision to Regulation 30(2) of the Regulations only shows that no employee of the AIIMs can be given extensions beyond that age. This has obviously been done for maintaining efficiency in the Institute services. We do not agree that simply because the appointment order of the appellant mentions that "he is appointed for a period of five years or till he attains The age of 62 years", the appointment ceases to be to a tenure-post. Even an outsider (not an existing employee of the AIIMS) can be selected and appointed to the post of Director. Can such person the retired prematurely curtailing his tenure of five years? Obviously not. The appointment of the appellant was on a five years tenure but it could be curtained in the event of his attaining the age of 62 years before completing the said tenure."

32. The observations contained in para 16 are to be read in the context in which the issue came up for consideration. The court, while holding that the post of Director was a tenure post, also held that such a tenure could not be prematurely terminated, curtailing his tenure of five years. It also observed that there was no concept of superannuation in such a case when a person was appointed on a tenure post by observing:

"Once a person is appointed to a tenure post, his appointment to the said office begins when he joins and it comes to an end on the completion of the tenure unless curtailed on justifiable grounds. Such a person does not superannuate, he only goes out of the office on completion of his tenure. The question of prematurely retiring him does not arise. The appointment order gave a clear tenure to the appellant. The High Court fell into error in reading "the concept of superannuation" in the said order.

Concept of superannuation which is well understood in the service jurisprudence is alien to tenure appointments which have a fixed life span. The appellant could not therefore have been prematurely retired and that too without being put on any notice whatsoever."

33. In this context, no doubt the observations have come to the effect that no employee of the Institute could be given extension beyond the age of 62 years. However, the question here is as to whether such observations would apply in a case when a Director is appointed on a tenure post and thereafter the question is about the extension of his tenure. This was not the issue before the court. Moreover, the chart produced by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding appointment of Directors in the Institute shows that the Directors have continued beyond the age of 60 years (when the retirement age of even faculty members was 60 years and not 62 years) and even beyond the age of 62 years (when the retirement age of faculty members is 62 years). However, it is not necessary for us to deal with this issue in the present case as the extension given to the respondent No.3 was way back in June, 2001 and he is going to complete his tenure in few months from now. We leave this question open and it would be for the authorities to consider this aspect of the matter in future as and when such an occasion arises.

34. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Rule stands discharged.