Dr. (Mrs.) Jatinder Kishtwaria vs Indian Council Of Agricultural Research & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant was selected and appointed as Director in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Central Institute for Women in Agriculture,

Bhubaneswar, the 3rd respondent herein. In the order of appointment dated 11.12.2015 it was mentioned that the tenure of the applicant is upto

30.11.2017, the date on which he would attain the age of superannuation in the parent organisation.

The applicant contends that according to the terms of advertisement his appointment should have been for a period of five years or till he attains the

age of 62 years whichever is earlier and in spite of that, he was disengaged from service on attaining 60 years of age. The applicant further contends

that there was no justification for the respondents in not extending the contract upto 62 years.

The respondents filed a detailed reply. According to them the tenure was specifically mentioned in the order of appointment and having accepted

the terms and conditions and joined the service, the applicant cannot plead to the contrary. Various contentions advanced by the applicant are denied.

The respondents have also filed an application to vacate the interim order.

We heard Mr. P. K. Arya, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Nagesh, learned counsel for the respondents.

The applicant was on the rolls of a different organisation. He came to be selected and appointed as Director in the office of 3rd respondent on the

basis of an advertisement and followed by an interview. It was clearly mentioned in the order of appointment dated 11.12.2015 that his tenure will be

upto 30.11.2017. In case the applicant had any reservation about it, he was expected to challenge the same by filing an OA in the year 2015 itself. The

very fact that he joined the service without any demur or protest, discloses that he has acquiesced in the said order. Therefore, he is estopped from

pleading to the contrary. At any rate, prayer in the OA itself was to continue him up to 30.11.2019 which expired long back. The applicant is not able

to cite any provision of law in support of his contention. On the other hand, the respondents have relied upon the relevant service rule. According to

that, the age of retirement of Scientific and Technical personnel will be 60 years. The applicant retired on attaining the age of 60 years. We do not find

any merit in the OA and it is accordingly dismissed. All the pending MAs stand disposed of. The interim order dated 30.11.2017 shall stand vacated.

There shall be no order as to costs.