P. VENUGOPAL versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2008] 8 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 08-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 8 S.C.R. 1 
P. VENUGOPAL 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(Writ Petition (C) No.656 of 2007) 
MAY 8, 2008 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
.._ 
A/I India Institute of Medical Sciences (Amendment) Act, 
2007 -
Proviso to sub-section (1A) of Section 11 -
Constitutional validity of - Held, ultra vires unconstitutional, c 
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and void ab initio -
Hence struck down - Constitution of India, Article 14- Service 
law - Administrative law, principles of Natural Justice. 
Words & Phrases: 
"Tenure" - Meaning of 
D 
In the writ petition filed before this Court, the 
petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the 
proviso to sub-section (1A) of Section 11 of the All India 
Institute of Medical Sciences (Amendment) Act, 2007. 
E 
Allowing the Writ Petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is true that in establishments like AllMS, 
+ 
there is an age of superannuation governing the length 
of service of its officers and employees. Such age of F 
superannuation may be suitably altered by way of 
reducing the age so as to affect even the serving 
employees under appropriate circumstances and no 
exception can be taken to such course of action. Similarly 
under the Service Rules, there may be provision for G 
extension of service after the attainment of the age of 
~ 
superannuation and it is well settled that in the event of 
refusal by an employer to grant an extension, the 
employee cannot justifiably claim to be deprived of any 
H 
2 
SUF'REME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 
'fl. 
A right or priviiegz. The employer has a discretion to grant or 
not to grant such extension having regard to the interest 
of the employer or the establishment. (Para 7] (8-E-G] 
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. vs. Jag Mohan 
B 
Lal AIR (1989) SC 75 - referred to. 
2. There can be no dispute that a person appointed 
;. 
in Government service acquires a status and his service 
conditions will be determined by the Service Rules or 
Statutory Rules and not by the contrary or inconsistent 
c terms of the contract, and such terms and conditions of 
service may be unilaterally altered by the Government. 
[Para 8) (9-E,F] 
Rosh an Lal Tandon vs. Union of India and Anr Al R 1967 
SC 1889 - relied on. 
D 
3.1 The term of 5 years for a Director of AllMS is a 
• 
permanent term. Service Conditions make the post of 
Director a tenure post and as such the question of 
superannuating or prematurely retiring the incumbent of 
E the said post does not arise at all. Even an outsider (not 
an existing employee of the AllMS) can be selected and 
appointed to the post of Director. The appointment is for 
a tenure to v·hich principle of superannuation d6les not 
apply. "Tenure" means a term during which the office is ... 
held. It is a condition of holding·the office. Once a person 
F is appointed to a tenure post, his appointment to the said 
post begins when he joins and it comes to an end on the 
completion of tenure unless curtailed on justifiable 
grounds. Such a person does not superannuate, he only 
goes out of the office on ( :>mpletion of his tenure. [Pa: a 
G 27] (28-E-H, 29-A] 
3.2 In 1958 AllMS had framed its regulations under 
~ 
Section 29 of the Act. Regulation 30-A was brought into 
AllMS Regulation by an amendment dated 25th of July, 
H 1981 notified in the Gazette on 1 oth of October, 1981 
P. VENUGOPAL v. UNION 
OF INDIA 
3 
~ 
coming into force w.e.f. 1st of August, 1981. The provision A 
of Regulation 30-A was very much in existence when this 
court had decided the case of Dr.LP.Agarwal on 21st of 
July, 1992. It is the same provision of Regulation 30-A, 
which was brought into force w.e.f. 1st of August, 1981 in 
the AllMS Regulations and had been re-numbered as B 
Regulation 31, when the AllMS 1958 Regulations had been 
substituted by AllMS Regulations, 1999. Therefore, it is 
incorrect on the part of the respondent to contend that 
Regulation 31 was introduced in the AllMS Regulations 
only after the judgment of this Court in Dr. L.P. Agarwal's C 
case. [Para 27] [29-A-C] 
+ 
Dr L.P Agarwal vs. Union of India and Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 
526 - relied on. 
Central Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirit and 0 
Lubricants Taxation Act, 1938; R.S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, 
Gujalat and Ors. vs. Ajit Mills Ltd. and Anr (19'17) 4 sec 98; 
Tamilnadu Education Department Ministerial and General 
Subordinate Services Association and Ors. vs. State of Tamil 
Nadu and Ors. (1980) 3 SCC 97; S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.