IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 140 of 2008 (S/B) Smt. (Dr.) Dhaneshwar Ghildiyal. ............ Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. ............ Respondents Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1. Mr. Arvind Vashishth, Asst. Solicitor General for respondent No. 2. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Mr. A.K. Behera, Advocate for respondent No. 4. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) An order was passed on 6th May, 2008 discontinuing and terminating the engagement / assignment of the petitioner as Chairperson, Uttarakhand State Social Welfare Board and ordering her to handover the charge of this Post to an officer of the State Government. For the reasons stated in the Court order dated 25th June, 2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 92 of 2008 (S/B), this Order was quashed and set aside with all consequences and certain directions were issued. The writ petitioner was permitted to file reply/ representation addressed to respondent No. 2, who was directed to consider the same and dispose it of on its merits and in accordance with law. In compliance with the aforesaid direction contained in the aforesaid order dated 25th June, 2008, impugned Communication No. F.1-33/2003/Reconst./SBA dated 8th July, 2008 has now been issued. This Communication is non-speaking as well as unreasoned. It is the undisputed case of the parties in this Court that Rules of the State Social Welfare Boards (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) are the Rules governing the removal of a Chairperson of a State Social Welfare Board. It is also the undisputed case of the parties before us that sub-rule (viii) of Rule 3 of these Rules is the specific Rule which relates to and governs the removal inter alia of the Chairperson and, in this sub-rule (viii), clause (vi) is the relevant, applicable clause which speaks of the removal of a Chairperson on the ground of having such conduct due to which her continuance in Office becomes detrimental to public interest. Sub-rule (viii), for ready reference, is reproduced herein below, which reads thus: “viii) The State Board can be dissolve / superseded or the Chairperson or any member can be removed from her office for specified reasons with the mutual consent of the Central Board and the State Govt. concerned. The term of the Chairperson, State Social Welfare Board, should not be terminated except for the following reasons: If she is – i) Of unsound mind. ii) Convicted or sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which involves moral turpitude. iii) Declare insolvent. iv) Person who refuses to discharge her duties or becomes incapable of discharging her duties. v) Absent from three consecutive of the Board and vi) Having such conduct due to which continuance in office becomes detrimental in public interest. vii) In case the Chairperson of the State Board is contesting any election (Assembly or Lokshabha), she will have to resign from the post of the Chairperson in administrative grounds.” It is the undisputed case of the parties before us that except the aforesaid Rules of the State Social Welfare Boards, there is no other Rule applicable or in operation, which governs or regulates the removal of the Chairperson of the State Social Welfare Boards. Mr. Arvind Vashishth, learned Asst. Solicitor General appearing for respondent No. 2 seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the Communication dated 8th July, 2008 (supra) with liberty to this respondent to proceed afresh and dispose of the representation of the petitioner, this time upon due consideration and by passing a comprehensive, detailed, reasoned and speaking order. According to Mr. Arvind Vashishth, the needful shall be done within two weeks from today. The writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous because of the aforesaid statement of Mr. Arvind Vashishth. Since the impugned Communication dated 8th July, 2008 is being withdrawn, there is no need of passing any fresh or further order. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court again, if felt aggrieved. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 17.09.2008 17.09.2008 G