Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The case involves a dispute over the appointment and tenure extension of the respondent as Director-General of a public institution, which is an autonomous body functioning under the Ministry of Power with significant public interest involved (!) (!) .

2. The appointment was made through a process involving a Search-cum-Selection Committee and approval by the highest authorities, including the Prime Minister acting as part of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet ("ACC") (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3. The appointment was initially for a fixed term of five years, with provisions for reappointment based on suitability, which was subject to approval by the ACC and other authorities (!) (!) .

4. The respondent was a long-term employee who was voluntarily retired and later appointed on a tenure basis. Despite his performance assessments being satisfactory, the authorities decided not to extend his tenure further and opted for a new recruitment process (!) (!) (!) .

5. The respondent challenged the termination and the recruitment of a new director through writ petitions, which were dismissed by the courts on grounds including delay, laches, and the absence of statutory rules prohibiting tenure appointments (!) (!) (!) .

6. The courts emphasized the importance of public interest, discretion of the employer, and the absence of statutory prohibition for tenure-based appointments, supporting the decision to appoint on a tenure basis rather than as a permanent employee (!) (!) .

7. Principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence were discussed, highlighting that inordinate delay and conduct indicating waiver or passive acceptance can bar relief. The conduct of the respondent, including multiple representations made late in his tenure, was viewed as conduct that could amount to acquiescence or waiver (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

8. The doctrine of fairness and reasonableness, especially regarding contractual relationships involving the state, was clarified to mean that express terms of a contract cannot be altered or varied by invoking fairness unless explicitly provided by law or applicable rules (!) (!) .

9. The rules governing the appointment to the post, including the absence of a statutory prohibition on tenure appointments and the discretion of the employer to decide on tenure or regular appointments, were upheld (!) (!) (!) (!) .

10. Ultimately, the courts held that the respondent was not entitled to continued employment beyond his fixed tenure, and the decision to appoint a new director was made in the public interest with proper adherence to procedural requirements. The appeals filed by the employer were allowed, and the respondent's petitions were dismissed (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.