DR. D.C. SAXENA versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 346 · Decided: 08-05-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
A 
B 
DR. D.C. SAXENA 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
MAY 8, 1987 
[R.S. PATHAK'., C.J. AND V. KHALID J.) 
Haryana Board of School Education Act, 1969, ss. 4A and 9-
Distinction between-Whether removal 'of Chairman of the Board 
pursuant to a general policy is violative of s. 9. 
C 
Words and Phrases-"Terms of service"-Whether includes 
tenure of service. 
The Haryana Board of School Education Act, 1969 by s. 4(A) 
stipulates that the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of the 
Board shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government. 
D Section 9 of the Act provides that the' State Government may remove a 
member whose continuance in office is not in the interest of the Board 
provided that before making such order, the reasons for removal shall 
be communicated and he shall be given an opportunity of tendering an 
explanation in writing which shall be ccnsidered by 'the State 
Government. 
E 
Jn exercise of powers conferred by the su)>-section (4) of s. 3 ofthe 
Act, the appellant was appointed as Chairman of the Haryana Board of 
School Education for a period of two years. On his appointment as 
Chairman, he resigned his post as Professor-Director of the Punjabi 
University Regional Centre, Bhatinda and took over as Chairman on 
F 
11th December, 1985. The appointment letter stated that the terms and 
conditions of the appointment will be notified later on. 
The appellant received a communication dated 24.3.86 from the 
Education Department that the Government may curtail his tenure of 
office at any time. Subsequently he was served with an order stating 
G that his terms of office had been curtailed with immediate effect and 
that he would cease to function as Chairman from 8.6.86. Similarly, 
H 
with the termination of the appellant's services, the services of l" ·• 
Chairmen of several other Boards and organisations were terminated. 
The appellant challenged the aforesaid order before the High Court iu a 
writ petitiim which was dismissed in Ii mine. 
346 
-
-
•• 
D.C SAXENA v. STATE OF HARYANA 
347 
' ) 
In appeal to this Court, he contended; (i) that the curtailment of 
A 
the original period fixed, altered his position to his detriment and that 
this .was done mala fide; (ii) that the word 'term' did not indicate the 
period of service and therefore, the government did not have the re-
quisite authority to curtail his tenure; and (iii) that the procedure laid 
down under s. 9 of the Act was not followed and consequently his 
removal was void. On the other hand, it was argued by counsel for the 
B 
.. >-
respondents: (i) that appellant's tenure of service could be curtailed at 
any time by the government; (ii) that appellant's tenure of service was 
)-
curtailed alongwith the Chairmen of 11 other Boards and corporations 
pursuant to a general decision taken by the State Government dispens-
ing with the service· of non-officials; (iii) that in the absence of any 
-
challenge to Rule 4A of the Act, the order of curtailment was valid in c 
law since the appellant can be in service only during the pleasure of the 
~ 
government. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. Section 4A is an insurmountable hurdle in the way of D 
r 
the appellant. Ifs. 4A is valid, the order of removal of the appellant has 
to be upheld. The validity of the section has not been challenged by the 
appellant either before the High Court or before this Court. Therefore 
the judgment orthe High Court is upheld. (3530] 
2. The expression 'terms of service" clearly includes tenure of E 
--~ 
service. [353F] 
3. It is appareni on a comparison of the terms of s. 4A and s. 9 
that while the former deals with the general power of the State Govern-
'~ 
ment to terminate the tenure of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and 
Members, the latter carves out a special field dealing with a category of F 
cases where the State Government may remove a member whose con-
tinuance in office Is not in the interest of the Board. A case falling within 
s. 9 is a case where removal must he for reasons personal to the member 
and flow from his conduct or such other factor which requires that, in 
the interest of justice and fair play, he should be given an opportunity to 
tender an explanation. In the view that s. 9 carves out a special field, (i 
• 'r- s. 4A is left with an abridged scope. So abridged, it deals with cases 
other than those where the continuance of a member calls for termina-
lion in the interest of the Board and requires that such memb
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.