IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Nitin Jamdar, M.S. Karnik, JJ.
Dr. Nishigandha Ramchandra Naik Indian inhabitant of Mumbai - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No. 302 of 2020
Decided On : 06-03-2020
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Institute Receives Salary Grant - National And International Awards - Invoking jurisdiction of this court petitioner is seeking a declaration that recruitment rules of respondent institute for training research and testing are binding on respondent - As a consequence of this declaration petitioner prays that age of superannuation of petitioner for post of assistant director as is being applied in petitioner’s case - Petitioner prays for setting aside letter of respondent rejecting request for change in retirement age of assistant director’s post - Petitioner possesses post graduate degree in m-sc microbiology and doctoral degree of ph-d in applied biology - She is a young scientist awardees national science academy - Petitioner has a post-doctoral experience for two years as an awardees of long term overseas fellowship of department of biotechnology government for first year and as an awardees of marie curie fellowship for second year which was awarded jointly by european commission and department of science and technology government - Petitioner has more than thirty years of research work experience that includes academia as well as industry - Her work is published in international journals and has several international patents to her credit - She has been felicitated by national and international awards - She has worked in field of cancer cell biology imaging and pre-clinical drug discovery – Held, However same will not apply to facts of present case as though memorandum of association provides for power to governing council for regulating terms and conditions of service in post of assistant director same cannot be read in isolation oblivious to fact that institute receives salary grant-in-aid and that increase in retirement age would have financial implications on salary grant - Further as we have discussed earlier Institute unanimously approved that terms and conditions of service of employees of Institute would be followed in accordance with government terms and conditions - Even approval granted to increase in retirement age in meeting has been held to be improper by Institute itself in resolution passed in meeting of governing council - In this light of matter and having regard to fact that respondent institute receives salary grants from government and considering that increase in age of retirement will have financial implications further that institute on its own showing was always aware of position that approval /sanction of government is needed for any increase in age of retirement we see no reason to fault decision of institute & government to retire petitioner at age - In light of view that we have taken it is not necessary for us to go into other contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner possesses requisite qualifications to continue till of age - Writ Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Karnik, J.
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Learned Counsel waives service for Respondents.
2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking a declaration that the Recruitment Rules, 2015 of the Respondent No. 2 -Haffkine Institute for Training Research and Testing (hereinafter referred to as “the Institute” for short) are binding on the Respondent No. 1 – State of Maharashtra. As a consequence of this declaration, the Petitioner prays that the age of superannuation of the Petitioner for the post of ‘Assistant Director’ would be 62 years and not 58 years as is being applied in the Petitioner’s case. The Petitioner prays for setting aside the letter dated 30 January 2020 of Respondent No.1 rejecting the request for change in retirement age of Assistant Director’s post from 58 years to 62 years.
The brief facts are thus :
3. The Petitioner possesses Post Graduate degree in M.Sc. (Microbiology) and Doctoral Degree of Ph.D. in Applied Biology. She is a Young Scientist Awardee of Indian National Science Academy. The Petitioner has a post-doctoral experience for two years as an Awardee of Long Term Overseas Fellowship of the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India for the first year and as an Awardee of Marie Curie Fellowship for the second year which was awarded jointly by European Commission and Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. The Petitioner has more than thirty years of research work experience that includes academia as well as industry. Her work is published in international journals and has several international patents to her credit. She has been felicitated by national and international awards. She has worked in the field of cancer cell biology, imaging and pre-clinical drug discovery. The Petitioner’s research is focused on cell motility related signal transduction events and development of therapeutic approaches for cancer, especially chronic myeloid leukemia, breast cancer, gliablastoma and neural stem cells. She is also involved in research on tuberculosis, venom and anti-venom. She is working as Principal Investigator on the projects to establish “National Venom Research Centre” and “Regional Coordination Centre for Prevention and Control of Zoonotic Diseases” which are funded by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. During the period from 1988-2007, she was associated with Cancer Research Institute of the Tata Memorial Centre Mumbai as Scientific Officer. For the period 2007 till 2013 the Petitioner was associated with Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Mumbai as Senior Group Leader and Head of Imaging & Cancer Biology Section.
4. In the year 2013, the Respondent No.2 – Institute issued a Notification that the posts in Group “A” and “B” category will be filled on contract basis and invited applications by its advertisement dated 5 February 2013. The Petitioner was interviewed on 12 February 2013. The Petitioner was selected and appointed as an “Assistant Director” as per office Order No.43 of 2013 dated 1 April 2013 on the recommendation of Selection Committed appointed for the interview on contract basis for a period of one year from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014. Thereafter, by an order dated 6 May 2014, the Petitioner was again appointed as an Assistant Director on contract basis for a further period of 1 year from 15 April 2014 to 14 April 2015.
5. On 26 March 2015, an advertisement was published by the Institute for the recruitment of Group “A” and “B” posts of Assistant Director, Senior Scientific Officer, Scientific Secretary, Librarian and Scientific Officer (handicap), etc. on regular basis. The Selection Committee on the basis of the interview recommended the Petitioner for an appointment as Assistant Director.
6. On 13/04/2015, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Director on permanent basis.
7. The Petitioner made an application to the University o
B.S. Minhas Vs Indian Statistical Institute & Others
Harinarayan G. Bajaj Vs Rajesh Meghani & Anr.
Kishorbhai Khamanchand Goyal Vs State Of Gujarat & Anr.
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.