Panaji: A petition which came up for hearing before Bombay high court has sought directions to govt to discontinue the services of Dr Ida de Noronha de Ataide as the dean of Goa Dental College and Hospital, alleging that she has “illegally” continued to be in the post after attaining the age of superannuation at 62 year. Ataide turned 65 this month.The petition has stated that she has been holding the post since 2023, contrary to Fundamental Rules and Goa State Civil Service (Retirement) Rules 2000.Filed by doctors of the dental college and hospital, the petition has stated that the order of May 27, 2020, purporting to redesignate the post of dean as dean-cum-professor emeritus was never approved by the personnel department, and that no amendment to the recruitment rules was ever carried out. The petition has stated that the dean herself initiated a proposal to amend the rules after the filing of the petition, thereby acting in her own cause to validate her illegal continuation.The petitioners have stated that, according to rules, a teaching medical officer holding an administrative post shall retire at the age of 62 years. However, in the event the medical officer wants to continue teaching, he/she shall seek fresh appointment as a teacher till the age of 65, but will not be able to hold any administrative posts. The petitioners have stated that the post of the dean is an administrative post, as it entails several administrative duties and obligations, and hence anyone holding the post of dean is bound to retire by the age of 62 years but can continue to be a teacher till the age of 65 years.They have also stated that the current dean has already been officiating as dean since 2017, and that it is unclear how govt has permitted her to continue to hold office despite the same being contrary to eligibility criteria and rules. They stated that if officers are permitted to continue to hold posts beyond their retirement age, the same will have a domino effect and consequently affect opportunities for younger officers to officiate the position of the dean, thereby jeopardising interests of several junior officers, including the petitioners.Such discriminatory and partisan acts of govt affect the morale and potential opportunities of junior officers, including petitioners, the court was told.