Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., V. KHALID, J.
Civil Appeal No. 3178 of 1986,
D/- 8-5-1987.
Dr. D.C. Saxena, Appellant
Versus.
State of Haryana and others, Respondents.
Haryana Board of School Education Act, 1969 - Section 3 (4), 4-A – Constitution Of India, 1950 - Article 311(2) - Chairman of Board - Termination of Appellant - Violation of Natural Justice - Person argued his case with clarity and competence - At times he was emotionally surcharged - He, perhaps, feels that he had a raw deal at hands of authorities - In Special Leave Petition he has given in great detail his high qualifications and meritorious achievements in various offices he held - Appellant was appointed as Chairman of Haryana Board of School Education as per order - At that time he was holding post as Professor-Director and took over as Chairman of Board – Whether consequent termination of appellant would be legal and in public interest or whether an exception could be made in his case in interest of Board - Held, Appellant, in desperation, put forward another plea, that expression "terms and conditions of service" would not take within its ambit "tenure of service"- In other words, his case was that word "term" did not indicate period of service and that, therefore, Government did not have requisite authority to curtail his tenure - This plea was met by respondents counsel saying that word term included tenure of service also - Both sides invited us to Dictionaries in support of their respective cases – Court do not think it necessary to seek support from Dictionary for this purpose - Expression "terms of service" clearly includes tenure of service – Court regret, court cannot help appellant on this plea either - In view of peculiar facts of this case, court do not think it necessary to consider various authorities cited before us regarding violation of Art. 311(2) and violation of natural justice – Court is extremely unhappy that such a situation has come to pass - Perhaps, appellants grievances are well founded - He left his prestigious post and joined Board expecting to be there for two years when he had a raw- deal at hands of authorities - However, on an application of provisions of Haryana Board of School Education Act, 1980 court find it difficult to rescue appellant from his predicament – Court trust and hope that Punjab University will be generous enough to accommodate him properly - Appeal Dismissed.
Judgement
KHALID, J.:- 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 qualifications 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 Haryana Board of School Education as per order dated 10-12-1985. At that time he was holding the post as Professor-Director and took over as the Chairman of the Board on 11th December, 1985. His original appointment was for a period of 2 years. The order of appointment reads as follows :
"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (4) of S. 3 of the Haryana Board of School Education Act, 1969 (as amended from time to time), the Governor of Haryana is pleased to appoint Dr. D. C. Saxena, Professor-Director, Punjabi University Regional Central, Bhatinda, as Chairman of the Haryana Board of School Education, in place of Shri Anil Razdan, I.A.S., with immediate effect for the period of two years.
2. 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. 19/40/83-Edu. III(5). In continuation of Haryana Government Order No. 19/40/83 Edu. III(5) dated 10th December, 1985, and in exercise of the powers conferred by subs. (4) of S. 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. D. C. 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.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
xxxx xxxx xxxx
xxxx xxxx xxxx
The appellant objected to this by his letter dated 3-4-1986, to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Education Department, Haryana., Chandigarh, marking a copy to 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 function as Chairman from 8-6-1986. This order is extracted below :
"In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 4-A of the Haryana Board of School Education Act, 1969, and in accordance with the terms of appointment under the heading "Tenure of Office" issued vide Order No. 19/40-83 Edu. III(5) dated the 24th March, 1986, the Governor of Haryana is pleased to curtail the tenure of office of Dr. D. C. Saxena as Chairman, 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, I.A.S., Director, 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 petition 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 special leave arises from the said order.
3. The appellants case is that his original appointment was for two years at a time when he was holding a prestig
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
