IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 8145 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 26.05.2009 Ranjit Singh Bajwa .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Vide notification dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure P-1), issued by the Government of Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 (2) of the Punjab School Education Board Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), the petitioner was appointed as Vice Chairman of Punjab School Education Board (hereinafter referred to as `the Board') till 30.5.2009. He joined as such on 2.1.2007. Now, he has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents to permit him to continue as Vice Chairman of the Board till 2.1.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that vide notification dated 29.12.2006, he was appointed as Vice Chairman of the Board till 30.5.2009, because he was to complete his 62 years of age on the said date, since as per CWP No. 8145 of 2009 -2- proviso to Section 5 of the Act, no person appointed as Chairman or Vice Chairman shall continue as such beyond the age of sixty-two years. However, as per Section 5 of the Act, the term of office of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman was three years from the date of publication of the notification. It is further case of the petitioner that vide Punjab School Education Board (Amendment) Act, 2008, Section 5 of the Act has been amended with effect from 5.5.2008. By the said amendment, age of retirement has been enhanced from 62 to 65 years. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid amendment in Section 5 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to complete his term of three years, which will be completed on 2.1.2010. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the notification of appointment of the petitioner as well as the amended and the un-amended provision of Section 5 of the Act, I do not find any ground to issue the direction sought for in this petition. The appointment of the petitioner as Vice Chairman is a statutory appointment. The Government, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 4 of the Act, appointed him as Vice Chairman of the Board till 30.5.2009. The said date has been mentioned in the notification itself. So, the appointment of the petitioner is upto a specific date. The Government has the power to extend the period of appointment. The notification does not say that appointment of the petitioner is till the date he attains the age of 62 years, which has now been enhanced to 65 years. It is not necessary that a person is appointed as Vice CWP No. 8145 of 2009 -3- Chairman only for three years. A Vice Chairman can be appointed for a short period also. Therefore, on the analogy that a person can held the post upto the age of 65 years, the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue in the office beyond 30.5.2009, the date notified in the notification dated 29.12.2006, Annexure P-1. In my opinion, only the Government is competent to extend the period. In case of a statutory appointment to an office for a fixed term, the period cannot be extended by the Court. Thus, I do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner. Dismissed. May 26, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE