Fixed-tenure appointment cannot be cut short by premature retirement in public interest absent express rule-based authority.

A direct recruit appointed to a fixed-tenure post could not be retired prematurely in public interest before expiry of the tenure. The Court held that a tenure appointment is governed by its fixed term and does not attract ordinary superannuation principles unless the governing rules expressly apply them. Because the recruitment rules created a tenure post and the appointment order granted five years' service subject only to the stated age limit, the rule on premature retirement was inapplicable. The reference to age 62 years did not convert the tenure post into a superannuation-based appointment, and the retirement resolution was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an incumbent appointed to a tenure post by direct recruitment could be prematurely retired in public interest before completion of the fixed tenure.

Analysis: The post of Director was governed by Recruitment Rules making it a tenure post to be filled by direct recruitment. The appointment order granted a fixed tenure of five years, subject only to the age limit mentioned in the order. A tenure appointment is held for a fixed term and does not attract the ordinary concept of superannuation. The service rule relating to premature retirement in public interest was therefore inapplicable to curtail the fixed tenure of the incumbent. The reference to the age of 62 years did not convert the tenure post into a superannuation-based appointment.

Conclusion: The appellant could not be prematurely retired from the tenure post, and the impugned retirement resolution was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A fixed tenure post filled by direct recruitment cannot be cut short by invoking the doctrine of premature retirement in public interest, because superannuation principles do not apply to tenure appointments unless the governing rules expressly so provide.

---