IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 19890 of 1999 Between: K.Ramaswamy, S/o K.Mallaiah, O/o.Veterinary Hospital, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1) The Registrar, Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. 2) The Principal, College of Veterinary Science, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of 'Certiorari' calling for the records relating to the notification Memo No.2856/VS/A1/98, DT.27.7.98 AND Memo.No.17019/VS/A1/99 dt.21.5.99 issued by its respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary discriminatory and contrary to the Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and continue him till he attains the age of 60 years with all consequential benefits attached to post and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.SURESH REDDY (SC FOR ANGRAU) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 19890 OF 1999 ORDER : The grievance of the petitioner in this case is with regard to the action of the Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Rajender Nagar, Hyderabad, the first respondent herein, in retiring him from service upon his attaining the age of 58 years. He sought a consequential direction to reinstate him and continue him in service till he attained the age of 60 years. The petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as a Veterinary Assistant / Veterinary Compounder in the respondent University on 18.02.1967 and his services were regularized from the said date. He claimed that he was appointed to the post basing on his qualification in Practical Dispensing (Higher Grade) Technical Examination conducted by the Animal Husbandry department in the year 1965-66. The petitioner claimed that according to un-amended Regulation 33 (a) of the University Regulations, all the technically qualified persons employed in the University are entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. However, the University issued notification dated 27.07.1998 putting the petitioner on notice that he would retire from service on 30.06.1999, upon his attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner made representations dated 20.04.1999 and 19.05.1999 requesting the University to continue him in service till he attained the age of 60 years but the University negatived the said request by its memo dated 21.05.1999 and thereafter, duly retired him from service upon his completion of the age of 58 years. The petitioner sought parity with other similarly situated employees viz., C.K.Mohan Rao, B.Panduranga, Channa Reddy and P.Chandraiah, who were continued in service up to the age of 60 years in pursuance of court directions. In such circumstances, the petitioner categorized the action of the respondent University in retiring him from service upon his attaining the age of 58 years as illegal and arbitrary and accordingly challenged the notification dated 27.07.2008 and the memo dated 21.05.1999 and sought a consequential direction to reinstate him and continue him in service up to the age of 60 years. No interim orders were passed in the writ petition. The respondent-University filed a counter stating that the petitioner was appointed as a Veterinary Compounder on 21.02.1967 on temporary basis and his services were regularized thereafter, from the date of his initial appointment. The examination passed by the petitioner is said to be one of the qualifications required for appointment to the post of Veterinary Compounder. It is admitted that according to un-amended Regulation 33 (a) of the University Regulations, the age of retirement of teachers and other technically qualified employees would be 60 years. However, on facts, it is contended that the petitioner was not a technically qualified employee in as much as he was appointed to the post of Veterinary Compounder which required him only to assist the Veterinary Doctors of the hospitals and the Professors in the colleges of the University. It is specifically averred that by his merely acquiring the qualification in Practical Dispensing (Higher Grade) Examination, he cannot claim to be a technically qualified employee. It is further stated that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the age of the retirement of non-teaching staff of the University was 55 years and subsequently it was revised to 58 years. In accordance with the same, the University issued memo bearing No.2856/VS/A1/98, dated 27.07.1998 informing the petitioner that he would be retired from service, upon his attaining the age of 58 years, on 30.06.1999. It is specifically pointed out that the said memo was issued 11 months prior to the petitioner’s attaining the age of retirement. In accordance with the said memo, he also submitted his pension papers, which was sanctioned vide Proceedings No.2256/VS/A1/99 dated 21.10.1999. In the background of the afore-stated circumstances, the University contended that the petitioner was not entitled to be continued in services up to the age of 60 years and that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed. It is relevant to note that the petitioner did not choose to file a reply affidavit rebutting the averments made in the counter affidavit. The facts afore-stated clearly establish that the petitioner was put on notice, long prior to his retirement on 30.06.1999, that he would be retired from service upon his attaining the age of 58 years, vide memo bearing No.2856 dated 27.07.1998. Inspite of the said notice, the petitioner did not choose to take any action in the matter till mid - 1999, when he made two representations dated 20.04.1999 and thereafter on 19.05.1999 seeking to be continued in service till the age of 60 years. This request was also negatived by the University on 21.05.1999 i.e. more than a month prior to his being retired from service. For the reasons best known to him, the petitioner did not choose to approach this Court till September, 1999 i.e. long after he was actually retired from service. Further, it appears that he also submitted his pension papers without any contest and the University sanctioned the same. On merits, it is seen that the University is contesting the claim of the petitioner as regards his eligibility to be continued in service up to the age of 60 years under the un-amended Regulation 33 (a) of the University Regulations. The stand taken by the University was not rebutted by the petitioner by filing a reply affidavit. The duties attached to the post occupied by the petitioner indicate that he is not a technically qualified employee and he was merely required to give assistance to the University Doctors and Professors. In such circumstances, he cannot claim parity with teachers and technically qualified employees who were continued in services up to the age of 60 years by virtue of their having obtained Court directions. There is no discrimination against the petitioner as contended by him. The writ petition is therefore found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 13th FEBRUARY, 2009 SUR