M. Srinivasan, C.J.- The petitioner after passing LLB. in 1975-76 got appointed as Assistant (Legal) by the H.P State Electricity Board (here-in-after referred to as “the Board"), The post was re-designated as Taw-Officer Grade-II’ in 1978, By office order dated 6-9-1983 the Board allowed him to act as an Advocate of the Board and also ordered that the expenditure on account of his getting a licence from the Bar Council shall be borne by the Board, His application for enrolment was forwarded by the Secretary of the Board to the respondent on 13-10-1983. By a letter dated 28-3-1994 the Secretary of the respondent informed the Secretary of the Board that the office order dated 6-9-1983 of the Board did not meet the requirements of the Rules and that he should first be designated as a Law Officer. The addressee was also requested to send the order of appointment and the terms of such appointment. On 11-6-1984 the Board passed an office order modifying the earlier order dated 6-9-1983 and declared the petitioner as Law Officer of the Board Thereafter on 5-7-1984 another office order was passed whereby the designation of the post of Law Officer Grade II was changed as Law Officer. The second paragraph of the said office order reads as follows : "By virtue of this appointment Shri Satish Kumar Sharma shall be required to act and plead in any Court of Law, on behalf of the H.P. State Electricity Board.” On receipt of the said communication the respondent issued a certificate of enrolment to the petitioner bearing date 9-7-1984.

2. By office order dated 8-5-1991, the petitioner was given ad hoc promotion to the post of Under Secretary (Legal)-cum-Law Officer the order also stated that he will continue to work in the Legal Cell of the Boards Secretariat. By a further order dated 14-1-1993 the petitioner was promoted as Under Secretary (Legal) cum-Law Officer on officiating basis.

3. The respondent by its communication dated 13-9-1993 called upon the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 28-9-1993 alongwith all connected documents/evidence in regard to his enrolment as Advocate, According to the communication, in its meeting held on 10-7-1993 the respondent had considered the matter regarding enrolment of certain Law Officers and decided to constitute a Committee to examine the matter. The respondent sent a further communication on 27-12-1993 requiring the petitioner to show-cause as to why his enrolment No. H1M/35/1984 issued to him to be not withdrawn. The reply was to reach the respondents office by 3012-1993

4. The petitioner requested for grant of one months time to put-forth his claim By a letter dated 11-1-1994 the respondent required the petitioner to file his reply to reach its office by 4th of February, 1994. The petitioner got further extension of time and sent a communication on 25-2-1994 stating that there was no ground for withdrawal of his enrolment. He reserved his right to file a detailed reply in case the grounds oh which the notice for withdrawal had been issued to him were disclosed. He also stated that he would like to be represented by an Advocate.

5. By office order dated 30-1-1995 the Board promoted the petitioner as Deputy Secretary (Legal) cum-Law Officer on ad hoc basis. He was required to continue to work in the Legal Cell of the Boards Secretariat.

6. In a meeting held on 12-5-1996 the respondent passed a Resolution unanimously withdrawing the enrolment of the petitioner with immediate effect and he was ordered to surrender the enrolment certificate within 15 days therefrom. The relevant part of the Repopulation reads as follows : “……………… Shri Satish Sharma is a permanent employee of the HPSEB and presently he is holding the post of Deputy Secretary in the HPSEB and is in continuous employment of the HPSEB and under Rule 49 he is debarred to be an Advocate, Morever, he was enrolled as an Advocate initially when he was appointed as Law Officer. Thereafter he had been getting promotions and working