The main legal point established in the judgment is that extension of service is not a vested right and is not co-extensive with the receipt of an award.

A.K. Ganguly, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for extension of his service by one year, i.e. from 1.2.1998 to 31.1.1999 in view of the fact that he received State Award on 5th September, 1994.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is relying on the Government resolution contained in Memo No. 7 dated 21.1.1987 on the basis of which he is claiming that the petitioner is entitled to get extension of his service by one year as a State Awardee teacher.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has got the State Award nor it has been disputed that the said award has been given in the month of September, 1994, and equally there is no dispute that the petitioner is normally entitled to continue in service up to 31.1.1998. In other words, the retirement of the petitioner falls due on that date. It is also not in dispute that the Government has already passed a resolution on 23rd May, 1996, which is much before the petitioner's date of retirement, changing its previous policy by taking away the right of such teachers to seek extension of service and replacing it by a cash award. The memorandum disclosing such policy of the State Government, has been annexed to this writ petition.

5. This Court has noticed that in connection with the said policy the matter was considered by this Hon'ble Court in some other cases and the Hon'ble Court has not held that the changed policy is bad, but Hon'ble Court has held that the said policy cannot be applied retrospectively, but it will be applied prospectively.

6. Now the question is whether the petitioner is entitled for extension of service despite the said decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has some legitimate expectation and in support of the said statement he has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Oil Extraction & Am. vs. State of M.P. & ors, reported in 1997 (7) S.C. Cases page-592. Reliance has been placed on para-44 at page-612 of the report where the question of legitimate expectation has been considered by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court by saying that the said doctrine has been judicially recognised by this Court in a number of cases. It has also been held that the said doctrine of legitimate expectation operates in the domain of public law and in an appropriate case, constitutes a substantive and enforceable right. There cannot be any dispute with the aforesaid propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The question is about its application in the facts of this case.

7. The petitioner must be knowing that the policy decision granting extension has been withdrawn in the month of May, 1996. Therefore, when the petitioner retired, i.e., on 31st January, 1998, there is no occasion for him to have any legitimate expectation for getting extension of service as by the time he reached at the age of superannuation the aforesaid policy of the Government to grant extension stood revoked. Therefore, the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be pressed into service here.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said change of the policy decision of the Government dated 23rd May, 1996 cannot be applied retrospectively to the case of petitioner since the petitioner has received award in 1994. Therefore, he must get extension of service in view of Government policy which stands on that date.

9. In answering this argument, this Court is of the opinion that nobody can claim extension of service as a matter of right. The same is not the vested right of any employee especially in a country threatened with large scale unemployment. It is normally not in public interest to extend the service of an employee when he reaches at the age of superannuation, and thus delay the chance of a young person to obtain employment. Only in exceptional cases the Government may grant such privilege