IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1099 of 2005 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 6780/2005) Dr.Jay Narayan Yadav, Son of Sri Baidya Nath Yadav, resident of village- Garha, P.S.-Ladania, District- Madhubani ….. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 01. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 02. The Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 03. The Joint Secretary, Government of Bihar, Human Resources Development (Secondary and Higher) Education, Bihar, Patna 04. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna ….. Respondents/Respondents For the Petitioner:- Mr. Suraj Narayan Yadav & Mr. Pramod Rajpati, Advocates For the State:- Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, AC to GA-1 For the B.S.S.B.:- Mr. A.P. Sinha & Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocates ---------------------------------- 07. 24.11.2011 This Appeal is directed against the order dated 19.09.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 6780 of 2005, upholding the order of removal by the State Government under doctrine of pleasure of the Governor from the office of the Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board from the date of issuance of the notification. The case of the appellant was that he was appointed as Chairman for a period of three years and for no fault of his he was removed from the office without conducting any enquiry vide notification dated 21.12.1999 for the reasons best known to the State for passing such order. 2 The writ petition has been filed questioning the same on the ground that the notification did not disclose about any enquiry and therefore it is in violations of the principles of natural justice, more so the appellant was also not afforded any opportunity to put forth his case. The State Government has filed a counter affidavit putting forth the acts of omission and commission of the appellant as a Chairman of the Board and explains the reasons for passing such order. But however the stand of the State is that there has no need to give any opportunity as ‘Rules’ do not contemplate for such action on the part of the State to afford an opportunity to the appellant herein and the action of State cannot be termed as violative of principles of natural justice as it is ‘subjective satisfaction’ of the State to invoke the doctrine of pleasure of the Governor to remove the appellant from the post of Chairman of the said Board. It is also contended before the learned Single Judge as well as before us by the standing counsel for the State that the only impediment on the part of the State is that this Court has to examine whether action of the State is subject to satisfaction based on any material and if any material is available for the action of the State 3 in invoking the pleasure of the Governor it cannot be questioned by the appellant. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that his view is supported from the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case reported in AIR 1994 (2) PLJR 76. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the State that this Court has only to examine whether the State has exercised this power on the basis of any relevant material on record for establishing the factual requirement to reach such conclusion by invoking the doctrine of pleasure of the Governor. If such material did exist to justify the action of the Government this Court should not interfere in such cases. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that even though rules contemplates for enquiry, no notice emerged from the State prior to taking such drastic action of removal hence, it violates the principles of natural justice. We had also an occasion to go through the material available on record as also the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case reported in AIR1994 (2) PLJR 76. The learned Single Judge has gone into the merits of the case and in extenso, having gone 4 into the records the Court was satisfied that the material was available for the State to reach such conclusion for invoking the powers of ‘doctrine of pleasure of the Governor, and hence there was no need to give notice before issuing such notification and upheld the action of the State and dismissed the writ petition with a cost of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the same the present Appeal has come up before this Court. We had also an occasion to go through the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR1994 (2) PLJR 76. The Apex Court was of the view that when the Act does not contemplate issuance of any notice, intention of the legislature is very clear and hence there is no need to issue any notice. It has also been further held that the matter is subject to satisfaction of State Government which must be reached on relevant material on record and not on the whims and fancy of the Government. The power can not be exercised unless relevant material is placed before the State Government. The case dealt with in AIR 1994 (2) PLJR 76 by the Supreme Court is with regard to interpretation of the similar Rules. The Apex Court has held that Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board taking over the Management and Control Act 1981 have 5 contemplated the removal of the Chairman under Section 9 (1) (g) of the Act. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant sought reliance on the ordinance which contemplates for issuance of show cause, but however when the ordinance have become an Act, the Act and provisions of concerned did not contemplate any notice to be issued before invoking such power of ‘doctrine of pleasure’. In absence of which, we are of the opinion that the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case reported in AIR1994 (2) PLJR 76 would cover this matter where the Apex Court was of the opinion that even though the State Government comes to the conclusion subject to satisfaction basing on the material available for removal of the Chairman under the Bihar Non- Government Secondary School Act, 1981 but has upheld the judgment of the High Court where action of the State Government has been upheld. Even in this case also the statutory provision is specified by necessary implication which excludes application of any principles of natural justice. Therefore the Court cannot ignore the mandate of the legislature or statutory authority and the principles of natural justice cannot be read into 6 such provision. The above view can be supported by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case reported in 1971 SCR 691 Union of India Versus J.N. Sinha. Under the above circumstances, as the learned Single Judge has gone into the records and arrived at the conclusion that the State has based its opinion subject to satisfaction on the material available on record, we are of the opinion that the appellant’s contention that the principles of natural justice have been violated by the State, cannot be sustained. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge need not be interfered with and accordingly the same is confirmed. But however we are of the opinion that as the appellant has put forth his grievance before this Court to the effect that awarding the cost of Rs. 1000/- is very excessive, we are of the opinion that it is a case where no costs should be awarded and accordingly the observation of the learned Single Judge awarding the costs of Rs.1000/- is set aside and the L.P.A. is partly allowed to that extent. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that liberty may be granted to him to 7 put forth his grievance by filing a representation and the Government State may be directed to consider the same. Such liberty is granted and if such representation is made the State Government may consider the same as expeditiously as possible. In the result the L.P.A. is partly allowed setting aside the costs imposed in C.W.J.C. No. 6780 of 2005 dated 19.9.2005. The rest of the order in the above C.W.J.C. is confirmed. P.K. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)