(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr Harshad K Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Kalpesh Shastri, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Sergeant in respondent Air Force Authority on 26.11.1985. He was appointed after following all the rules and regulations and after verifying the documents produced by the petitioner. As per the appointment letter/pay slip, the petitioner's services will come to end after 20 years i.e. on 30.11.1985. The petitioner applied for extension of engagement for Airmen on 29.6.2004 for a period of 3 years or such lesser period for which he may be considered suitable. As per the requirement, an employee who applies for extension has to make application before 18 months prior to expiry. The petitioner accordingly applied for engagement for Airmen well within time. The authority has also recommended for extension of engagement of service of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondents informed the petitioner that since he is not fulfilling certain conditions of para (4) regarding passing of GEB examination, the petitioner is not entitled for extension. The petitioner has immediately informed the respondents that he has already passed the said examination way back. The respondents raised objection that the petitioner is not fulfilling the criteria mentioned in para 8D of AFO 11/99 dated 17.9.2004 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for extension of services. Hence this petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
“16.(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a appropriate writ, order or direction and may be pleased to quash and set aside the action of the respondents in not extending the service of the petitioner, though the petitioner is serving since last 20 years and further be pleased to direct the respondents to extend/continue the services of the petitioner for a period of 3 years and/or appropriate period as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to restrain the respondents from discharging the petitioner from services w.e.f. 30.11.2005 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;...”
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has urged that since the petitioner has been discharged from service, there is no question of extending his services and the discharge order is just and proper and that the petitioner had incurred two black ink entries in his conduct sheet in preceding five years of his current Regular Engagement and he was not cleared by Directorate of Intelligence. Therefore, the petitioner's case was not approved for grant of extension of service and he was discharged from service by order dated 17.5.2005. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents, in para 4 it is stated that the petitioner was enrolled on 26.11.1985 and the date of regular engagement of 20 years has expired on 25.11.2005. On 25.11.2005 the petitioner did submit application for extension of service on 29.6.2004 but extension application of the petitioner was not granted as it was found by the respondents that the petitioner had not passed promotion examination to the rank of JWO which was a pre-requisite condition for grant of extension of service. The petitioner has got no right to claim any extension of service as a matter of right and if the respondents have not found him fit to grant extension of service, this court cannot extend the period of extension of service for three years as prayed for by the petitioner.
4. We do not find any illegality in the discharge order or the order refusing to extend the service. Further the writ petition was filed in the year 2005 claiming that three years' extension be granted to the petitioner. We are in the year 2012 and we have not found this to be a fit case where the petitioner was entitled to any extension of service.
5. For the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[V.M. SAHAI, J.] [G. B. SHAH, J.] msp