The appointment of the Chairperson of the Central Social Welfare Board was not an appointment to an Office under the State within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of the Constitution. The Government had the power to remove the petitioner from the post of Chairperson before the expiry of the three-year term. The petitioner was not entitled to any relief in the nature of specific performance, declaration, or injunction to continue in the Office.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Chairperson of the Central Social Welfare Board (which is a Government Company) for a period of three years, with effect from 20. 11. 88, through a Government Resolution dated 16. 12. 88. The Resolution stated that the petitioner had assumed charge of the Office of the Chairperson on, the afternoon of 28th November, 1988. Alleging that the respondents want to terminate her appointment before the completion of three years, the present writ petition has been filed. It is prayed that the respondents be restrained from terminating her appointment before the period of three years is complete and to allow her to continue as the Chairperson.

( 2 ) IT is stated in the petition that the petitioner is a prominent social worker and a former Congress-1 member of Rajya Sabha from 1976 to 1988. It is alleged that the proposed action of termination, by the Government which has come to power in 1989, is arbitrary, illegal and vindictive. It is also stated in the petition that her services cannot be terminated merely because the party in power in the Central Government is changed. The petition further states that the proposed action against the petitioner is violative of the principles of natural justice.

( 3 ) IN reply the respondents have submitted that the appointment of the petitioner is merely a contract of personal service and no writ petition would lie for enforcement of such a contract. It is also submitted that the term of three years, REFERRED TO to in the Resolution, is the maximum period of appointment and the respondents have power to terminate the same before the expiry of three years. It is also alleged that the petition is not bonafide.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the petitioner Mr. M. C. Bhandare, Senior Advocate, submitted that merely on change of government after elections the new Government cannot be permitted to cancel the appointments made by the earlier Government. He urged the Court to pronounce upon the legality and propriety of such actions in the wider interest of generel public and good Government. The Counsel further submitted that the petitioner s appointment is an appointment to an Office under the State and constraints imposed by Article 16 (1) of the Constitution on the Government equally apply in the present case. He submits that the proposed action of terminating the petitioner s appointment is arbitrary as it hits Article 16 (1) of the Constitution. Relying on some decisions of the Supreme Court the counsel further submits that the principles of natural justice should be observed before the respondents take any action and the petitioner is entitled to know the reasons as to why her appointment is proposed to be terminated. The counsel submits that the petitioner was being pressurised to submit her resignation under the threat of dismissal.

( 5 ) MR. Arun Jaitley, Additional Solicitor General of India, has controverted all allegations of malafide and submitted that the allegation of pressure and threat for resignation were false and malicious, as stated in para 3 of the counter affidavit. He submits that the petition is premature as no action has been taken against the petitioner by the respondents. The learned Additional Solicitor further submits that the relief of a restraint order on termination of the appointment and the direction for the continuance of the appointment cannot be granted by the Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Contract of personal service, according to the learned Additional Solicitor, cannot be specifically enforced in any Court of law and the reliefs claimed by the petitioner are in the nature of specific performance. The learned Additional Solicitor further submits that the appointment and termination of the petitioner is in the realm of private law of Company s internal management. The learned Additional Solicitor further submits that the Supreme Court in L l. C. v Escorts (AIR 1986 SC 370) has held tha