A.K.Mathur, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has confirmed the order passed by learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed by the Union of India dated 18.11.2005 purporting to terminate the deputation of the respondent as Chairperson, National Council for Teacher Education (for short, NCTE). Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent herein was informed on 31.12.2003 that he has been selected as Chairperson of the NCTE for a period of four years or till he attains the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier. After this appointment the respondent herein was relieved by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 21.1.2004 and he assumed the charge of Chairperson, NCET on 22.1.2004. It was alleged that the respondent while working as Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training in the State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow an inquiry was conducted by the State Vigilance Commission at the behest of Government of Uttar Pradesh in respect of examination of 2001, in 2004. The State Vigilance Commission submitted the report on 27.3.2005 and on the basis of that report, a First Information Report was registered on 19.9.2005 implicating seven persons including the respondent herein and a separate order was passed by the State Government placing the respondent under suspension pending commencement of disciplinary proceeding. When this fact came to the notice of the Union of India, it passed an order on 18.11.2005 terminating the deputation of the respondent as Chairperson, NCTE. This order was subject matter of challenge in the writ petitioner filed by the respondent before the Delhi High Court. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter the impugned order dated 18.11.2005 is reproduced below: JUDGEMENT_585_TLPRE0_2007Html1.htm The respondent filed a writ petition challenging this order before learned Single Judge that he was not on deputation, therefore, his tenure could not be terminated and he could not be repatriated back to the State of Uttar Pradesh. The principal submission of the respondent before the learned Single Judge was that the respondent was appointed under Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and the services of the respondent could only be terminated in terms of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. It was submitted that the respondent has not become disqualified under Section 5 of the Act, therefore, the Central Government could not remove a person under Section 6 of the Act. The plea of the appellants before learned Single Judge was that the respondent was on deputation, therefore, deputation period has been terminated and he has been repatriated back to his parent Department as Education Officer of the State Government. It was also submitted that the appointment of the respondent was a pleasure appointment of the President of India under Article 310 of the Constitution of India. The appointing authority being the Central Government, therefore, as per General Clauses Act, the appointing authority could terminate the services of an incumbent.
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge after considering the matter took the view that there was no question of invoking the pleasure doctrine in the present case under Article 310 of the Constitution of India and the respondent was not on deputation, therefore, his services could not be terminated and he could not be repatriated back to the State of Uttar Pradesh. It was also held that since the incumbent was appointed under the Act of 1993 and he had not incurred any of the disqualifications mentioned in the Act, therefore, his services could not be terminated. It was also held that as per the method of termination of an incumbent as provided under the Act, his services could only be terminated in the manner as provided under the Act and none else. LEARNED Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Union of India. Against the order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court, a writ appeal was filed by the appellants before the Division Bench of the High Court which confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge, by order dated 27.7.2006. Hence aggrieved against the impugned order dated 27.7.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, the present Special Leave Petition was filed by the appellants. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India submitted that the appointing authority in the present case is the Union of India and it is a pleasure appointment. Therefore, under Article 310 of the Constitution of India, the President can terminate the services of an incumbent. Therefore, they need not to follow the procedure laid down under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. On the question of pleasure doctrine, learned ASG invited our attention to the following decisions of this Court.;