Post-superannuation service extension request u/r 143 denied for lack of exceptional public-interest grounds; refusal upheld, petition dismissed.

Challenge to refusal of post-superannuation extension was decided by applying Rule 143 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016, which permits extension only in exceptional circumstances and in public interest, not as a routine. As no exceptional circumstance or administrative exigency justified retaining the employee, and the department's choice to consider pending promotional avenues was a valid administrative consideration, the refusal was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed. Residents' representations seeking retention were held insufficient to establish public interest or exceptional circumstances, and alleged extensions granted to others without particulars or proof of parity could not found a right to extension, nor could an illegality in other cases confer entitlement.

---

---

The petition sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order rejecting the petitioner's request for "extension in service after superannuation." The petitioner, a Principal who retired on 30.11.2023, relied on good work and conduct, local residents' representations requesting her continuance, and an assertion that similarly placed departmental employees had been granted extension. The Court upheld the rejection, finding the competent authority "correctly considered" the case under Rule 143 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016, which permits extension only "in exceptional circumstances in public interest" and "should not be as a matter of routine." The order recorded that "No exceptional circumstance was found," and "nor the administrative requirements justified extension," particularly because employees were awaiting promotions and the Department chose to consider their cases instead of extending a superannuated employee's tenure. Representations by residents were held insufficient to establish "public interest or exceptional circumstance." The alleged comparators were unsupported by particulars or documents showing similarity. Even if others received extensions "in violation of Rules," that would not confer any right to claim retention. The petition was dismissed.

---