On Wednesday, the Delhi Supreme Court asked the Delhi government and the Institute for Human Behavior and Allied Sciences (IHBAS) to respond to a request to request the extension of the mandate of IHBAS Director NG Desai, who is turning 65. Years.
A bank owned by Supreme Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh issued a statement to the Delhi government and IHBAS requesting their position on the petition of a former employee of the institute.
“It is regrettable that individual or minor interests are being disguised as public interest, as can be seen from the petitioner’s allegations. With full respect for the judicial process and the integrity of the administrative system, I do not want to say much more than distort the motives and interpret them properly. All respondents, including myself, will respond clearly to the court when requested, ”said Nimesh G Desai, Director of IHBAS.
The petitioner, Tej Bahadur Singh, said that the current director of the institute was appointed to the position in 2016 for five years or up to age 65, whichever comes first. According to Singh, Desai turned 65 in October 2020 and therefore cannot continue as a director without the deputy governor approving the extension of her term.
Singh alleged that when she turned 62 in 2012 and applied for an extension to IHBAS, she was told that no one was allowed to remain on duty beyond retirement age under the rules.
Therefore, no other evidence could be used in the current director’s case, he argued.
The advocacy group tried to overturn all decisions, including the appointment of a co-director (administration), which Desai took after age 65.
The statement also sought a court order prohibiting Desai from making administrative decisions during the pending petition period. However, the bank refused to make such a request.
It also called on the Delhi government to transfer the position of director of IHBAS to the director of a government hospital until a new director is appointed.
Attorney Tushar Sannu, who appeared for IHBAS, informed the court that the petitioner was a former employee and therefore had a vested interest in the case.
The case would now be heard on January 29.