ivil Appeal No 3178 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 1961986 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No 3096 of 1986
Appellant in person
Dr YS Chitale Harbanslal and Ravinder Bana for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHALID J
1
The appellant appeared in person and argued his case with clarity and competence
At times he was emotionally surcharged
He perhaps feels that he had a raw deal at the hands of the authorities
In the Special Leave Petition he has given in great detail his high qualifica tions and meritorious achievements in the various offices he held
Shorn of these details the necessary facts in brief for the disposal of this appeal are as follows 2
The appellant was appointed as Chairman of the Har yana Board of School Education as per order dated 10 12 1985
At that time he was holding the post of Professor Director of the Punjabi University Regional Centre Bha tinda
On his appointment as the Chairman of the said Board he resigned his post as Professor Director and took over as the Chairman of the Board on 11th December 1985
His origi nal appointment was for a period of 2 years
The order of appointment reads as follows In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section 4 of section 3 of the Haryana Board of School Education Act 349 1969 as amended from time to time the Governor of Haryana is pleased to appoint Dr DC Sexena Professor Director Punjabi University Regional Centre Bhatinda as Chairman of the Haryana Board of School Educa tion in place of Shri Anil Razdan IAS with
immediate effect for the period of two years
The terms and conditions of his appointment will be notified later on
 While he was holding the office as Chairman of the Board thus he received a communication dated 24 3 1986 from the Education Department of the Haryana Government informing him that the Government may curtail his tenure of office at any time
The relevant portion of the order reads as follows No 194083 Edu
III5
In continuation of Haryana Government order No 194083 Edu
III5 dated 10th December 1985 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub sec tion 4 of Section 3 of the Haryana Board of School Education Act 1969 as amended from time to time the Governor of Haryana is pleased to prescribe the following terms and conditions of appointment of Dr DC Saxena as Chairman of the Board of School Education Haryana from the date he took over charge as such Tenure of Office His tenure of office shall be for a period of two years from the date of assuming charge
The Govt
may however curtail the tenure at any time
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx The appellant objected to this by his letter dated 3 4 1986 to the Commissioner cum Secretary Education Depart ment Haryana Chandigarh marking a copy of the then Chief Minister of Haryana
On 7th June 1986 he was served with an order that his term of office had been curtailed with immediate effect and that he would cease to 350 function as Chairman from 8 6 1986
This order is extracted below In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec tion 4 A of the Haryana Board of School Educa tion Act 1969 and in accordance with the terms of appointment under the heading Tenure of Office issued vide order No 1940 83 Edu 1115 dated the 24th March 1986 the Governor of Haryana is pleased to curtail the tenure of office of Dr DC Saxena as Chair man Haryana Board of School Education with immediate effect and orders that he shall cease to function as such with immediate effect from 8 6 1986
Shri Vivek Mehrotra IAS Direc tor School Education Haryana will hold the charge of office of the Chairman Haryana Board of School Education in addition to his own duties till further orders
 The appellant challenged this order by filing a writ peti tion in Punjab and Haryana High Court on 10th June 1986
A Division Bench of the High Court issued notice and directed status quo as on that day to continue
On 19th June 1986 the matter was listed before another Division Bench and the writ petition was dismissed in limine
This appeal by spe cial leave arises from the said order
The appellant s case is that his original appointment was for two years at a time when he was holding a presti gious post that he relinquished that post and took charge of the new post that the curtailment of the original period fixed altered his position to his detriment and that all this was done mala fide
The appellant took us through the facts in detail to highlight the case of mala fides to persuade us to accept his case that the curtailment and removal was punitive and that it was done in violation of the law as laid down by this Court in various decisions
The case of the State as disclosed in the affidavit filed by them is that the affairs of the Board of School Education Haryana are governed by the Haryana Board of School Education Act 1969 hereinafter referred to as the Act
Sub section 4 of Section 3 of the Act stipulates that the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board shall be appointed by the State Government upon such terms and conditions as it may think fit and they shall hold office at the pleasure of the State Government
It was in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub Section 4 of Section 3 of the Act that the appellant was 351 appointed Chairman
In the appointment letter it had been specifically provided that the terms and conditions of the appointment would be notified later
Subsequently by commu nication dated 24th March 1986 he was told that his tenure of service could be curtailed at any time by the Government
The State Government had taken a general decision on 6th June 1986 dispensing with the services of non official non MLAs as Chairman of the Boards and Corporations exclud ing Kurukshetra Development Board and Tourism Corporation Haryana
It is stated in the Counter Affidavit that this general order was examined by the Secretary Education Department to see whether the consequent termination of the appellant would be legal and in public interest or whether an exception could be made in his case in the interest of the Board
After the examination of the relevant files in the Education Department it was decided that the appel lant s services could also be dispensed with by curtailing his tenure
Along with him Chairmen of eleven other Boards and Corporations were also dropped
It was pursuant to this decision that his tenure of service was curtailed with immediate effect by the communication dated 7th June 1986
It is stated that Section 4 A of the Act enabled the Govern ment to do this
In the absence of any challenge to this rule the order of curtailment was valid in law since the appellant could be in service only during the pleasure of the Government
The first respondent in this appeal is the State of Haryana and the second respondent a member of the Legisla tive Assembly and the son of the present Chief Minister of Haryana
The appellant was appointed Chairman of the Board when Shri Bhajan Lal was the Chief Minister
The order informing him that his tenure would be for two years and that the Government could curtail this tenure at any time was also issued when Shri Bhajan Lal was the Chief Minister
In the original order of appointment it was indicated that the tenure of his office would be for two years
Only four months later he was alerted by another order that the Gov ernment could curtail his tenure at any time
He must have been aware of Section 4 A which reads as follows 4 A Chairman Vice Chairman and members to hold office during pleasure of State Govern ment
Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3 or Section 4 or any other provision of this Act the Chairman Vice Chairman and members of the Board shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government 352 An argument was attempted to be advanced before us that the procedure laid down in Section 9 was not followed in his case and that this omission rendered his removal bad
For a better appreciation of this contention we quote section 9 9 Power to remove members If in the opin ion of the State Government the continuance in office of any person as a member is not in the interest of the Board the State Govern ment may in consultation with the Board make an order removing such person from such mem bership Provided that before making such order the reasons for his proposed removal shall be communicated to him and he shall be given an opportunity of tendering an explanation in writing which shall be duly considered by the State Government
 It is clear that the proviso to the Section makes it obliga tory on the State Government to communicate the reasons for the proposed removal of a member and to give him an opportu nity of tendering his explanation in writing and also a duty on the State Government to consider it
It was argued that the Chairman of the Board is also a member and his removal without complying with the procedure laid down in Section 9 is against law and has to be set aside
The contention that Section 9 has been violated is wholly without force because in our opinion Section 9 does not come into play at all in this case
It is apparent on a comparison of the terms of Section 4 A and Section 9 that while the former deals with the general power of the State Government to terminate the tenure of the Chairman Vice Chairman and members the latter carves out a special field dealing with a category of cases where the State Government may remove a member whose continuance in office is not in the interest of the Board
A case falling within Section 9 is a case where removal must be for reasons personal to the Member and flow from his conduct or such other factor which requires that in the interest of justice and fair play he should be given an opportunity to tender an explanation
In the view that Section 9 carves out a special field Section 4 A is left with an abridged scope
So abridged it deals with cases other than those where the continuance of a member calls for termination in the interest of the Board and requires that such member be given an opportunity of tendering an explanation before such removal
Section 4 A can be said to include cases where the tenure of a Chairman 353 Vice Chairman or a member is liable to termination on grounds of general policy
On the facts and circumstances it is clear that the termination of the appellant s tenure was the result of the policy decision taken by the Govern ment to bring in a new class of Chairmen in different Boards in the State
From the material on record we are not satis fied that the termination of the Appellant s tenure was prompted by mala fides or was punitive in nature
The Appel lant s services were dispensed with because of a general decision taken by the Government dispensing with the serv ices of non officials and non MLAS as Chairmen of the Boards and Corporations excluding the Kurukshetra Development Board and the Tourism Corporation Haryana
Similarly with the termination of the Appellant s services the services of Chairmen of several other Boards and Organisations were terminated
It is clear therefore that if Section 4 A is valid the order of removal of the Appellant has to be upheld
The validity of Section has not been challenged by the Appellant either before the High Court or before us except in a casual manner in the Written Submissions filed before this Court
The High Court has rightly held that Section 4 is an insur mountable hurdle in the way of the Appellant
We have therefore although with extreme reluctance having regard to the personal merit of the Appellant to uphold the Judgment of the High Court
The appellant in desperation put forward another plea that the expression terms and conditions of service would not take within its ambit tenure of service
In other words his case was that the word term did not indicate the period of service and that therefore the Government did not have the requisite authority to curtail his tenure
This plea was met by the respondents  counsel saying that the word term  included the tenure of service also
Both sides invited us to Dictionaries in support of their respective cases
We do not think it necessary to seek support from the Dictionary for this purpose
The expression terms of service clearly includes tenure of service
We regret we cannot help the appellant on this plea either
In view of the peculiar facts of this case we do not think it necessary to consider the various authorities cited before us regarding the violation of Article 3112 and violation of natural justice
We are extremely unhappy that such a situation has come to pass
Perhaps the appellant s grievances are well founded
He left his prestigious post and joined the Board expecting to be there for two years when he had a raw deal at the hands of the authorities
However on an application of the provisions of the Haryana Board of School Education Amend 354 ment Act 1980 we find it difficult to rescue the appellant from his predicament
We trust and hope that the Punjab University will be generous enough to accommodate him prop erly
The appeal has to fail and is dismissed without any orders as to costs
MLA Appeal dis missed


Summary:
The Haryana Board of School Education Act 1969 by section 4A stipulates that the Chairman Vice Chairman and Members of the Board shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government
Section 9 of the Act provides that the State Government may remove a member whose continuance in office is not in the interest of the Board provided that before making such order the reasons for removal shall be communicated and he shall be given an opportunity of tender ing an explanation in writing which shall be considered by the State Government
In exercise of powers conferred by the sub section 4 of section 3 of the Act the appellant was appointed as Chairman of the Haryana Board of School Education for a period of two years
On his appointment as Chairman he resigned his post as Professor Director of the Punjabi University Regional Centre Bhatinda and took over as Chairman on 11th December 1985
The appointment letter stated that the terms and conditions of the appointment will be notified later on
The appellant received a communication dated 24386 from the Education Department that the Government may cur tail his tenure of office at any time
Subsequently he was served with an order stating that his terms of office hod been curtailed with immediate effect and that he would cease to function as Chairman from 8686
Similarly with the termination of the appellant s services the services of Chairmen of several other Boards and organisations were terminated
The appellant challenged the aforesaid order before the High Court in a writ petition which was dismissed in limine
347 In appeal to this Court he contended i that the curtailment of the original period fixed altered his posi tion to his detriment and that this was done mala fide ii that the word term  did not indicate the period of service and therefore the government did not have the requisite authority to curtail his tenure and iii that the proce dure laid down under section 9 of the Act was not followed and consequently his removal was void
On the other hand it was argued by counsel for the respondents i that appellant s tenure of service could be curtailed at any time by the government ii that appellant s tenure of service was curtailed alongwith the Chairmen of 11 other Boards and corporations pursuant to a general decision taken by the State Government dispensing with the service of non offi cials iii that in the absence of any challenge to Rule 4A of the Act the order of curtailment was valid in law since the appellant can be in service only during the pleasure of the government
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD 1
Section 4A is an insurmountable hurdle in the way of the appellant
If section 4A is valid the order of remov al of the appellant has to be upheld
The validity of the section has not been challenged by the appellant either before the High Court or before this Court
Therefore the judgment of the High Court is upheld
353D 2
The expression terms of service clearly includes tenure of service
353F 3
It is apparent on a comparison of the terms of section 4A and section 9 that while the former deals with the general power of the State Government to terminate the tenure of the Chairman Vice Chairman and Members the latter carves out a special field dealing with a category of cases where the State Government may remove a member whose continuance in office is not in the interest of the Board
A case failing within section 9 is a case where removal must be for reasons personal to the member and flow from his conduct or such other factor which requires that in the interest of justice and fair play he should be given an opportunity to tender an explanation
In the view that section 9 carves out a special field section 4A is left with an abridged scope
So abridged it deals with cases other than those where the continuance of a member calls for termination in the interest of the Board and requires that such member be given an opportunity of tendering an explanation before such removal
Section 4A can be said to include cases where the tenure of a Chairman Vice Chairman or a member is liable to termination on grounds of general policy
352E H 353A 348 In the instant case the termination of the appellant s tenure was neither prompted by mala fides nor was punitive in nature
The appellant s services were dispensed with because of a general decision taken by the government dis pensing with the services of non officials and non MLAs as Chairman of the Boards and Corporations excluding the Kuruk shetra Development Board and the Tourism Corporation Har yana
353B C The Court expressed the hope that the Punjabi Universi ty will be generous enough to accommodate the appellant properly