ORDER
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. Petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. He served Indian Air Force for more than 31 years. After his retirement from Air Force service he was re-employed with Air Force. At that point of time, respondent No.3, namely, Director, Air Force Group Insurance Society (AFGIS) released a Circular for filling up the post of Deputy/Assistant Director (Financial Analyst). This Circular was sent to all Commands/Stations/Wings and Units of Indian Air Force and was dubbed as Post Retirement Rehabilitation measure under AFGIS. Certain qualifications to be fulfillled for that post were also specified in the Circular. At the end of the Circular, it was stated that “APPLICATIONS INVITED PURELY AS A POST RETIREMENT REHABILITATION MEASURE”. The petitioner also applied for this post and was selected for the post as “Financial Analyst”. He joined AFGIS on 5th July, 1995. One month after his joining the petitioner was issued Appointment Letter dated 9th August, 1995 which stipulated terms and conditions of service apart from other usual terms and conditions relating to pay-scales, leave etc. It was stated in para-2 thereof that Managing Committee had approved the appointment of the petitioner as “Financial Analyst” in the AFGIS w.e.f. 5th July, 1995 for a period of one year. The petitioner immediately reacted to the clause giving him appointment for a period of one year only by sending representation dated 14th August, 1995 and pointing out that at the time when applications were invited it was not specified that appointment was for a period of one year nor was there any stipulation in the letter of AFGIS when petitioner was asked to join the post w.e.f. 5th July, 1995. He also stated that he was given proper pay-scale in the same breath which was contradictory to the clause relating to appointment for a period of one year only. He also mentioned that Director of Accounts, Air Head Quarters had informed him that the post was permanent in nature and he should join the post. For this reason he did not seek any extension on his re-employment with Air Force and joined the post in question. On this premise he requested respondent No.3 to consider issuance of appointment letter with terms and conditions as broadcasted by Air Head Quarters. Respondent No.3 replied to the aforesaid representation by communication dated 13th September, 1995 in which it was, inter alia, mentioned that in Air Head Quarter-K Broadcast i.e. Circular inviting applications, there was no stipulation that appointment of Financial Analyst will be on permanent basis or till 58 or 60 years of age. As the petitioner himself had not asked specific period of employment at the time of interview he was not informed of this. In this manner the representation of the petitioner was rejected. Not satisfied, the petitioner sent another representation dated 25th September, 1995. He reiterated his earlier stand and again requested for reviewing his case or forwarding the same to Air Head Quarter for clarification/ruling from Air Officer In charge Administration (AOA)/D Accounts. He also mentioned that if no communication is received by 29th September, 1995 the petitioner would be appealing to Air Head Quarter directly. Pat came reply dated 29th September, 1995. In this reply he was warned against discussing such issues directly with the Board of Trustees making him realised that in the norms of administration discussions/ meetings are to be only through proper channel. He was also warned that he should not use threatening language like giving dates by which AFGIS Administration is to respond to his letters. The petitioner received another letter of even date informing him that the period of probation of the petitioner was extended by another three months i.e. up to 4th January, 1996. The petitioner still ventured to make representation to AOA through proper channel by addressing communication dated 16th October, 1995 with advance copy to AOA. In this he repeated his stand taken in earlier communications to respondent No.3. He appealed to AOA to issue necessary ruling regarding his tenure and status of appointment. There is nothing on record as to what happened to his representation to AOA i.e. whether it was rejected or not considered at all. It can however be reasonably inferred that request of the petitioner was not acceded to. However, after the expiry of one year period of the appointment, the petitioner was granted extension of service by another one year i.e. till 31st July, 1997. Yet another yearly extension was given till 31st July, 1998. On the expiry of this last extension the petitioner was informed by impugned communication dated 31st July, 1998 that no further extension beyond 31st July, 1998 was approved by the Board of Trustees and, therefore, his period of engagement would expire on 31st July, 1998. The petitioner described this as letter of termination and appealed to AOA. As no reply was received instant petition was filed by the petitioner on 13th August, 1998 challenging communication dated 31st July, 1998 as wrongful termination by raising the plea that he had right to serve as AFGIS employee till 30th June, 1999 as the normal age of retirement of AFGIS employee is 58 years which petitioner would have attained in June, 1999.
2. His submission in the writ petition, therefore, is that the impugned communication is in gross violation of the retirement rules of employees of AFGIS and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, he was never given a notice of three months which is stipulated in the rules and is a mandatory requirement. It is also his submission that as the appointment of Financial Analyst is made purely as a ‘Post Retirement Rehabilitation Measure’, termination of service below 58 years of age is irregular, unreasonable, illogical and illegal more particularly when the petitioner had completed initial three months probation as well as further three months extended probation. The petitioner also submitted that as per the recommendations of Subramanium Committee, and comments of D-Accounts and decision of Board of Trustees the tenure of the post of Financial Analyst should be for a minimum of 5 years.
3. Notice to show cause was issued in this writ petition pursuant to which respondents appeared and filed counter-affidavit. The respondents have relied upon the appointment letter dated 9th August, 1995 laying down terms and conditions of appointment of the petitioner categorically stating that the Chairman, Managing Committee, had approved petitioner’s appointment as Financial Analyst for a period of one year. This term was extended twice on yearly basis i.e. up to 31st July, 1998 but the Board of Trustees did not approve his extension of service beyond 31st July, 1998 and, therefore, impugned communication dated 31st July, 1998 was sent which according to the respondents is not a termination letter inasmuch as term of the appointment of the petitioner was itself till 31st July, 1998 which came to an end by efflux of time. The petitioner was conscious of his tenure and he had no vested right to get extension. Therefore, no fundamental right of petitioner had been violated. As the petitioner had availed of two extensions granted to him, he could not do a volte-face and was estopped from challenging the initial appointment. It was also submitted that it was presumptuous on his part to have this notion that post of Financial Analyst would be for a long term rehabilitation. Merely because it was post retirement rehabilitation measure would not necessarily mean that same was to continue indefinitely or without any review. Attempt is made in the counter-affidavit to explain that argument of the petitioner on the basis of Annexure P-15 that the incumbent of his post should continue to work for at least 5 years, is not factually correct. The explanation is put across in this mode:-
“The petitioner has annexed Annexure P-15 bringing out the decision of the Board of Trustees of AFGIS to the effect that the incumbent of this post should continue to work for 05 years. This is factually not correct. At that time the Board of Trustees felt that tenure of employees could be longer. In fact this is a part of the minutes of meeting held on 07 Feb 94, i.e. much before the decision of actual selection and appointment of a Financial Analyst and it was a generic policy contemplated at that point of time. This has absolutely no relevance in the instant case because when finally it was decided to engage a Financial Analyst, then ‘K’ Broadcast etc was issued. The Board of Trustees at no point of time had increased the tenure of Financial Analyst. Further, the presumption of the petitioner that these minutes of 07 Feb 94 would indicate his continuance in the said post automatically for a period of 05 years is entirely erroneous, far-fetched and misplaced”.
4. In the additional affidavit dated 1st October, 1999 the respondents have further submitted that efforts were made to recruit/have service officers on deputation but as service officers were not interested/no response was received from officers the posts were ultimately advertised vide Circular dated 11th April, 1994. The age of eligibility was below 50 years and those due for retirement shortly were invited. The petitioner was clearly ineligible even according to the Circular as he had superannuated and was reemployed for two years. The rules relating to appointment and recruitment, therefore, do not apply to the petitioner as they apply to only permanent employees. When the petitioner was appointed as Financial Analyst specifically for one year he was 54 years of age. Thus he was appointed at the age of 54 years and not 50 years. He had, therefore, joined the respondent after 50 years only when other employees of staff were recruited at the younger age as per the service rules of AFGIS staff and it is only those regular staff/employees who were entitled to get retired at the age of 58 years. The appointment of the petitioner was on a special post as per the contract and was not regulated by the service rules.
5. It may be mentioned that when the arguments in this case started the respondent raised the objection that respondent no.3 was not a `State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, writ was not maintainable. Since there was no specific plea raised in the counter affidavit to this effect, time was sought to file additional affidavit which was granted. The respondent filed additional affidavit in which maintainability of the writ petition is challenged on the ground that it is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner filed his reply submitting, inter alia, that AFGIS is run by Air Head Quarter as Self Run Scheme under the aegis of Air Officer in charge of Administration (AOA) Branch. In this affidavit it is mentioned that AFGIS is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which provides insurance cover for serving and retired Air Force Personnel. It raised its funds by mobilising savings of officers of Air men of Indian Air Force and no contribution is being made to Union of India. Rules of the Society are approved by Board of Trustees, AFGIS which are not statutory in nature. Respondent No.3 is sponsored and controlled by Air Force Authority. It is an attached department of the Air Headquarter which render an important public service of providing insurance cover to the serving and retired Air Force personnel which a ‘State’ function. The management and functioning of AFGIS is completely controlled by the Chief of Air Staff and the Air Officer in charge of Administration at Air Headquarters. The Chairman and Members of the Board of Trustees, who manage and administer the affairs of the AFGIS, are all serving Air Force officials receiving their pay and allowances from Ministry of defense. The President of India conveyed his sanction to Chief of Air Staff for running the AFGIS departmentally by the Air Head Quarters.
6. From the facts in the pleadings as noted above, following picture emerges:
7. For appointment to the post of Financial Analyst, as per the service rules, age of eligibility is below 50 years. The respondents wanted the post to be filled up on deputation basis since service officers were not interested and no response was received there from. Circular dated 11th April, 1994 was issued for filling up of the post from among those who had retired, as rehabilitation measure. Petitioner at that time was 54 years of age. May be for this reason, at the time when the Managing Committee selected the petitioner, it approved his appointment for one year only. No doubt the petitioner was not informed about this decision at the time he was asked to join and terms and conditions of appointment were given to him one month after his joining by appointment letter dated 9th August, 1995. In this letter it was specifically stated that the appointment was for a period of one year from 5th July, 1995. Although petitioner represented against the same, however, the representations were rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner did not pursue the matter. Not only this, after the initial expiry of one year tenure, his tenure was extended by another year. He accepted and continued to work. In this manner he got another extension of one year i.e. till 31st July, 1998. He took benefit of this extension also and continued to work. He at that time did not object to such extensions or repeated that he had right to work for a period of 5 years or till the age of 58 years. Once his second extended term expired on 31st July, 1998, he started protesting again. As the petitioner was otherwise not even eligible as per rules for appointment initially as Financial Analyst because he was much above the age of 50 years i.e. 54 years old, he cannot rely upon the service rules to say that he had right to continue up to the age of 58 years. It is clear that he was given contractual appointment for a period of one year which contractual appointment was extended twice. For similar reasons he cannot rely upon the recommendations of Subramanium Committee to contend that once appointed as Financial Analyst he had right to work for a period of 5 years. His appointment was approved by the Managing Committee for a specific period and he is bound by the terms and conditions of the appointment. The appointment came to an end by efflux of time i.e. on 31st July, 1998 as the Managing Committee did not approve of his extension thereafter. Therefore, it cannot be treated as termination. It is, therefore, a case of automatic termination on the expiry of contractual appointment. (Refer: Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. versus Smt. Pushpa Srivastava ). Thus, I do not find any merit in this petition.
8. As I am dismissing the petition on merits, I need not go into the question as to whether respondent No.3 is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, that question is left open.
9. The Writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.