IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 66 of 2011 (PIL) Shri Nanda Ballabh Sati ….…… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents Mr. D.S. Patni and Mr. P.S. Rawat, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State / respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Date of Judgment: 02.11.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Respondent No. 4 was appointed on contract basis as the Principal of the Government Medical College, Haldwani, District Nainital. In the last of such contract, it was mentioned that respondent No. 4 shall be entitled to discharge the duties of Principal of the said College within the contract period or within his attaining the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. At the time when the writ petition was filed, challenging further continuation of respondent No. 4 as the Principal of the said College, respondent No. 4 had already crossed the age of 65 years, although the contractual period had not expired. Subsequent to expiry of the said contract, no renewal thereof has been made. Petitioner has questioned, in the present writ petition, continuation of respondent No. 4 as the Principal of the said College. 2. Despite several orders passed, the Government has not yet been able to take a specific decision whether to renew the contract with respondent No. 4, entitling the said respondent to discharge the duties of the Principal of the said College any further. In view of the said contract, respondent No. 4, apparently, is not entitled to work any further as the Principal of the said College. However, it is the contention of respondent No. 4 that on 26th October, 2010, i.e., before the contractual period of respondent No. 4 came to an end and also before he reached the age of superannuation of 65 years, the Government issued an order and thereby, extended, until further orders, 2 the age of superannuation of staff nurses and faculty members of medical colleges of the State until the date of their superannuation as determined by the Medical Council of India. It is the contention of respondent No. 4 that on 17th September, 2010, the Medical Council of India, by amending the Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998, extended the age of superannuation of faculty members of medical colleges until 70 years. It appears to be the contention of respondent No. 4 that in view of the steps, thus taken by the Medical Council of India and the State Government, respondent No. 4, on the strength of the said agreement, is entitled to continue to discharge the duties of the Principal of the said Medical College until he attains the age of 70 years. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order of the Government dated 26th October, 2010 addresses extension of the age of superannuation of staff nurses and faculty members and not of Principals. At the same time, it has not been brought on record by the petitioner that without being a faculty member a person can be a Principal of a Medical College. 3. However, since the appointment of respondent No. 4 is a contractual appointment, the contract is required to be interpreted. The contract, in the instant case, provides as follows: - “The period of contract shall initially be for one year or till the attaining the age of 65 years by the Second Party whichever is earlier. At the end of the initial period of one year, the performance of the Second Party shall be reviewed by the First Party and in case found satisfactory, the contract may be renewed on annual basis. This process of renewal shall be followed for as much period (subject to limitation of attaining age of 65 years by the Second Party) as the First Party may desire so and the Second Party is willing to provide its services.” 4. In such circumstances, the contract made it specific that the contract is for one year or until respondent No. 4 attaining the age of 65 years. The contract did not postulate any superannuation age. The contract also did not postulate extension without a renewed contract. 5. In the circumstances, despite the age of superannuation of faculty members having been extended by the aforementioned Government order, the contractual period of respondent No. 4, in law, has not been extended. 3 He is, therefore, not entitled to discharge the duties of Principal of the said College on and from the date respondent No. 4 crossed the age of 65 years. 6. This order will be effective one month hence, within which time; it shall be open to the State Government to either renew the agreement with respondent No. 4 or to appoint a new Principal of the said College. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 02.11.2011 02.11.2011 Amit