Extension of service can be granted only in exceptional cases.

(PRAYER: - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.201, Health and Family Welfare (M1) Department dated 31.08.2005 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to promote the petitioner as Government Analyst with effect from 01.09.2005 with all consequential benefits. Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 25.11.2005 passed in W.P.M.P.No.30865 of 2005 in W.P.No.28348 of 2005 on the file of this Court.)

Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. By consent of the parties, the writ appeal as well as the writ petition are taken up for hearing. The parties are referred as arrayed in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner is challenging G.O.Ms.No.201, Health and Family Welfare (M1) Department dated 31.08.2005 issued by the first respondent granting extension of service to the 3rd respondent for a period of one year commencing from 01.09.2005 to 31.08.2006. The impugned order was purportedly passed in exercise of power available under Fundamental Rule 56(1)(a) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2035, Public (Services-A) Department dated 28.10.1969.

3. The petitioner is working as Deputy Government Analyst in Drug Testing Laboratory, Chennai having rendered 28 years of service. The next promotion for him is to the cadre of Government Analyst. The Drug and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 prescribe the qualification for the post of Government Analyst. As per the Rules, a graduate with two years experience as Deputy Government Analyst and also having training experience in Schedule ‘C’ drugs would be appointed as Government Analyst. There is no dispute that the petitioner satisfies the qualifications laid down by the Rules. The 3rd respondent, who was holding the post of Government Analyst was due to retire with effect from 31.08.2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent, without considering his claim and qualifications, issued the impugned order dated 31.08.2005 thereby granting extension of service to the 3rd respondent depriving his right of promotion. The petitioner contends that the Government has issued clear guidelines in Government Letter No.82 P & AR Department dated 30.03.1994 enumerating criteria to be adopted while granting extension of service. As per the said Government letter, extension of service could be granted on the satisfaction of the two conditions alone viz., extraordinary ability and dearth of qualified officer. The petitioner complains that none of the conditions has been fulfilled in this case by the 3rd respondent and the impugned order is wholly arbitrary and illegal.

4. G.O.Ms.No.2035, Public (Services-A) Department, dated 28.10.1969 reads as follows:

“Abstract:- Public Services – Technical and Scientific Personnel Utilisation of Services – beyond age of superannuation – Revised instructions – issued.

Read:- 1.G.O.Ms.No.290, Public (Services-A) dated 19.02.193

2. G.O.Ms.No.917, Public (Services-A) dated 18.05.1963.

******

ORDER:

In the G.O. first read above, the Government ordered that persons with scientific and technical (including medical) qualifications might be normally retained in service upto the age of 58 years if they are physically and otherwise fit for the public service to meet the situation created by the declaration of the National Emergency in 1962 as there was demand for large number of technical personnel. In the G.O. second cited the Department of Secretariat were requested to draw up a list of posts, in consultation with the Heads of Departments if necessary the holders of which would come within the scope of the orders G.O.Ms.No.290, Public (Services), dated 19.02.1963. As the National Emergency has been lifted and as the demand for technical personnel has eased the Government have reconsidered the orders mentioned above and they iss