The Supreme Court has dismissed the Centre's petition seeking review of its order quashing the health ministry's move to fix 65 years as the upper age limit for the All India Institute of Medical Sciences director -- which led to the premature retirement of P Venugopal last year.

Venugopal, who was reinstated as AIIMS director after court's intervention, has now left the institute after his five-year tenure as director ended in July.

The government's petition related to his premature retirement episode now is limited to the technical point of fixing 65 as the upper age limit for retirement of the AIIMS director.

A division bench comprising Justices Tarun Chatterjee and H S Bedi, however, refused to entertain the government's plea review.

The apex court, on May 9, 2008, had struck down the controversial amendment to Section 11 of the AIIMS Act, 2007, by which Venugopal was prematurely retired and had termed the proviso as "unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice".

The court had passed the order on a petition filed by the former director P Venugopal alleging that the act was amended for the purpose of removing him from the prestigious institute.

Sixty-six-year-old Venugopal, whose five-year term was due to end on July 2 this year, was eased out of office last November following an amendment to the AIIMS Act fixing 65 years as the age of superannuation.

Venugopal and Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss were engaged in a bitter turf war over the control of the prestigious institute and the controversial amendment to the AIIMS Act was perceived to be linked to their tussle.

The court, while admitting Venugopal's plea filed soon after his forced retirement in November, had directed his reinstatement as the institute's director and had termed as "naked discrimination" and "one man legislation" the Centre's controversial act, which prematurely retired the eminent cardiologist.

It rejected the government's claim that the amendment was brought in deference to the Delhi [Images] high court's direction that premature termination could only be made for justifiable reasons and in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The apex court observed, "the impugned proviso does not lay down any policy or principle at all, but deals only with the case of the writ petitioner and seeks to affect him in isolation."