Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4.
The petitioner was Principal in Shri Kishori Lal Beni Madhav Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, New Bairahana, Allahabad. His date of birth is 25.08.1951. The age of retirement is 62 years. If a teacher attains the age of superannuation during the course of an academic session, as per Rules, he is entitled to continue till the end of the academic session. Accordingly, the petitioner continued in service upto 30.06.2014. There is a Government Order dated 30.12.2014 which provides for extension of service upto maximum age of 65 years for teachers who are national/state awardees. Claiming the benefit of the said Government Order, the petitioner applied for extension of his service on 23.04.2014 and when no decision was taken on the said application, the petitioner filed Writ-A No.33921 of 2014 which was disposed of by order dated 04.07.2014 requiring the Director of Education (Secondary), Government of U.P., Lucknow to take a decision on the prayer of the petitioner for extension. Pursuant to the order dated 04.07.2014 passed in Writ-A No.33921 of 2014, by order dated 25.11.2014, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the prayer for extension cannot be considered, inasmuch as, the petitioner had not appended the medical fitness certificate as was required.
The order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the Director of Education (Secondary) was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ-A No.2586 of 2015 which was disposed of by order dated 28.01.2015. The operative portion of the order dated 28.01.2015 passed in Writ-A No.2586 of 2015 is being reproduced herein below:-
"In view thereof though this court does not interfere in the order impugned, it is kept open for the petitioner to obtain proper medical certificate after his medical examination. The medical certificate as well as the medical examination report be filed along with an application before the Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. Allahabad. In case such an application is moved,the Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. Allahabad, respondent no.2 shall consider the claim of the petitioner and take an appropriate decision after calling for the comments from the District Inspector of Schools and the Management of the institution in accordance with law. An expeditious decision be taken preferably within a period of one month from date of filing of the application.
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of."
Pursuant to the liberty given by order dated 28.01.2015, the petitioner filed a fresh application for seeking extension of his service. By the impugned order dated 10.11.2015, the Director of Education (Secondary) rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the claim for extension should be made during the course of service, which includes the period provided by way of sessions benefit, but, in the instant case, the earlier application of the petitioner for extension was incomplete and, therefore, the same was rejected and, thereafter, the second application could not be entertained because the petitioner had already retired. Apart from the aforesaid ground, various other observations have come in the order which are not relevant for deciding the controversy involved.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.11.2015 on the ground that since the petitioner had earlier moved an application during subsistence of his tenure in service, therefore, the second application which was moved pursuant to the liberty given by this Court ought not to have been rejected on the ground that it was moved after his retirement because such application ought to have been taken as part of previous application and, therefore, it should have relate back to the date of the previous application.
The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted because the application which was filed earlier was an incomplete application and the order rejecting the said application was not set aside by the writ court while passing the order dated 28.01.2015 in Writ-A No.2586 of 2015 and, in fact, it was specifically observed by the writ court that the court was not interfering with the order impugned. In view of the above, the rejection of the earlier application had terminated the proceedings and, therefore, the second application was a fresh application, which was required to be considered in accordance with law.
Since the second application has, admittedly, been moved after the petitioner had already retired, the rejection of the said application cannot be said to be illegal. Moreover, the maximum age upto which extension could be granted is 65 years. The petitioner's date of birth is 25.08.1951, therefore, he attains the age of 65 years in just few days from today.
In view of the above, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.8.2016 AKShukla/-