THE Professor of Celtic Archeology at UCD began a challenge in the High Court yesterday against "a decision of the college's governing body to discontinue his employment after the age of 65.
Prof George Eogan, Brighton Road, Rathgar, Dublin, is taking the action by way of judicial review against the university.
Yesterday Mr Paul Butler SC for Prof Eogan, said his client was 65 on September 14th last.
The governing body of UCD decided last June not to continue his employment after the age of 65. But, in a letter from the president of UCD last May, Prof Eogan was declared fit to continue until he was 70.
Prof Eogan was appointed as an assistant in the department of archaeology, UCD, in 1965. He was told by the then head of department, Prof Ruairi de Valera, that one of the benefits of the appointment was that he could continue in office until 70.
In an affidavit, Prof Eogan said the decision not to continue his employment was apparently reached on the basis of a recommendation by the governing body in November 1987 that, for financial reasons, statutory lecturers or professors should not work after 65.
Prof Eogan contends that since the establishment of UCD it was well established practice for the governing body to allow statutory lecturers and professors to continue in office until the age of 70. Therefore, he had a legitimate expectation that he, too, would be allowed to continue in office until 70.
UCD ought not to be allowed to retract from the position which had existed before 1987 in relation to people holding statutory positions prior to that time, Prof Eogan claimed.
In August 1976, he was made lecturer in Celtic Archaeology, and in April 1979 he was appointed Professor of Celtic Archaeology.
He held his present office under the provisions of the statutes and charter of the National University of Ireland.
It was provided in the statutes that each professor could continue in office until the age of 65. After that, he or she could remain in their posts for a further five years provided this was recommended to the NUI senate by the governing body.
Mr Ercus Stewart SC, for UCD, said the applicant was not entitled to take a case of judicial review against UCD as he had not established it was a public law remedy.
In an affidavit, Mr Gerard Wright, secretary of UCD, said the judicial review procedure was a remedy against a person or body empowered by public law to make decisions.
It was submitted that the dispute did not involve public law rights and obligations and was a private law matter.
The governing body's decision was taken on foot of a finance committee recommendation which sought financial cuts. All professors and lecturers were formally notified in January 1988.
From 1988 onwards, the circumstances that justified the decision had not changed to any material extent. In fact, they had deteriorated significantly.
The governing body also believed that it was necessary to lower the age profile of the academic staff in UCD.
UCD ensured that the application of the discretionary scheme for added years in respect of pension entitlements and other benefits would be made available to the relevant candidates to ensure they did not suffer any deterioration in their retirement circumstances by virtue of non continuation of their service beyond 65.
The hearing continues today.