The State Government has the power to terminate the tenure of a nominated member of the Executive Council of Himachal Pradesh University before the expiry of the prescribed period of two years.

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner, seeks to challenge the validity of notification dated 26th February, 1993 of the Himachal Pradesh University, terminating his tenure as a nominated member of the Executive Council before the expiry of the period of 2 years and nominating Shri Harbhajan Singh Bhajji in his place. In this petition there are three respondents. Himachal Pradesh University (hereinafter referred to as the University) is respondent No 1, the State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Education) is respondent No. 2 and Shri Harbhajan Singh Bhajji is respondent No. 3 It is alleged that the petitioner is a Law Graduate and a practising Lawyer in District Court Shimla and High Court of Himachal Pradesh. It is his case that he was elected as M. L. A. from Shimla Constituency on the ticket of Bhartiya Janta Party (hereinafter referred to as *B J. P) in the year J990. He was nominated as a Member of the Executive Council of the University by the State Government on 27th March, 1990 fora period of two years. He was again nominated as a Member of the Executive Council of the University by the State Government on 27th March, 1^90 for a period of two years with immediate effect through notification dated 28th March, 1992 vide Annexure-Pl.

2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is a Law Graduate from this very University and is much more conversant with the affairs of the University. He was rendering valuable service for the welfare of the University and the cause of the learning. It is also alleged that the term of the petitioner was specified as two years and there is no enabling clause to reduce this term. The petitioner states that his removal from the membership of the Executive Council before the expiry of the prescribed term amounts to stigma and it affects his future prospects in life and has further tarnished his image in the public. It is also alleged that in the year 1990 *BJP came to power in the State, but the State Government was dismissed by the President under Article 356 of the Constitution of India on 15th December, 1992. Against the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly a writ petition No. 1037 of 1992 entitled Shri Shanta Kumar v. Union of India was filed in the Court which is pending for decision. The petitioner further states that the action of removing him from the membership of the Executive Council and nominating respondent No. 3 who had been the member of the Legislative Assembly of the Congress Government before 19^0, is malafide, illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice. His further grievance is that the Legislative Assembly had been dissolved but the petitioner still retains the confidence of the public and during the President Rule the State Government could not have terminated his tenure He alleges that in all aspects he has better merit than respondent No. 3

3. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have contested the petition by filing separate sets of couuter-affidavits. Reply-affidavit has been filed by Shri Prem Kumar, Additional Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal! Pradesh on behalf of respondent No 2. In its reply the State have raised some preliminary objections. It is submitted in preliminary objection No 1 that after recent Political change in Himachal Pradesh there is a sea change in the administration of the State, the termination of the petitioners nomination was in furtherance of the objective that its nominee should be able to carry out its policy. It was considered that in the changed circumstances, the petitioner would not be able to work in conformity with and implementing the basic policy of the present regime of the State. It is further stated that respondent No. 3 was the nominee of the State and his term was curtailed after the elections in which the ‘B J.P’ came into power in March 1990

4. In objection No 2, it is submitted that neither the University Act nor Statutes provide for a term for