Khalid, J. - (1.) The appellant appeared in person and argued his case with clarity and competence. At times he was emotionally surcharged. He, perhaps, feels that he had a raw deal at the hands of the authorities. In the Special Leave Petition he has given in great detail his high qualifications and meritorious achievements in the various offices he held. Shorn of these details the necessary facts, in brief, for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:
(2.) The appellant was appointed as Chairman of the Haryana Board of School Education as per order dated 10-12-1985. At that time he was holding the post of Professor Director of the Punjabi University Regional Centre, Bhatinda. On his appointment as the Chairman of the said Board he resigned his post as Professor-Director and took over as the Chairman of the Board on 11th December, 1985. His original appointment was for a period of 2 years. The order of appointment reads as follows: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (4) of S. 3 of the Haryana Board of School Education Act, 1969 (as amended from time to time), the Governor of Haryana is pleased to appoint Dr. D. C. Saxena, Professor-Director, Punjabi University Regional Central, Bhatinda, as Chairman of the Haryana Board of School Education, in place of Shri Anil Razdan, I.A.S., with immediate effect for the period of two years. 2. The terms and conditions of his appointment will be notified later on." While he was holding the office as Chairman of the Board thus, he received a communication dated 24-3-1986, from the Education Department of the Haryana Government, informing him that the Government may curtail his tenure of office at any time. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:- "No. 19/40/83-Edu. III(5). In continuation of Haryana Government Order No. 19/40/83 Edu. III(5) dated 10th December, 1985, and in exercise of the powers conferred by subs. (4) of S. 3 of the Haryana Board of School Education Act, 1969 (as amended from time to time), the Governor of Haryana is pleased to prescribe the following terms and conditions of appointment of Dr. D. C. Saxena as, Chairman of the Board of School Education, Haryana, from the date he took over charge as such: Tenure of Office His tenure of office shall be for a period of two years from the date of assuming charge. The Govt. may, however, curtail the tenure at any time. ********** ********** ********** The appellant objected to this by his letter dated 3-4-1986, to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Education Department, Haryana., Chandigarh, marking a copy to the then Chief Minister of Haryana. On 7th June, 1986, he was served with an order that his term of office had been curtailed with immediate effect and that he would cease to function as Chairman from 8-6-1986. This order is extracted below: "In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 4-A of the Haryana Board of School Education Act, 1969, and in accordance with the terms of appointment under the heading "Tenure of Office" issued vide Order No. 19/40-83 Edu. III(5) dated the 24th March, 1986, the Governor of Haryana is pleased to curtail the tenure of office of Dr. D. C. Saxena as Chairman, Haryana Board of School Education with immediate effect and orders that he shall cease to function as such with immediate effect from 8-6-1986. Shri Vivek Mehrotra, I.A.S., Director, School Education, Haryana, will hold the charge of office of the Chairman, Haryana Board of School Education in addition to his own duties till further orders." The appellant challenged this order by filing a writ petition in Punjab and Haryana High Court on 10th June, 1986. A Division Bench of the High Court issued notice and directed status quo, as on that day, to continue. On 19th June, 1986, the matter was listed before another Division Bench and the writ petition was dismissed in limine. This appeal by special leave arises from the said order.
(3.) The appellant's case is that his original appointment was for two years at a time when he was holding a prestigious post, that he relinquished that post and took charge of the new post, that the curtailment of the original period fixed altered his position to his detriment and that all this was done mala fide. The appellant took us through the facts in detail to highlight the case of mala fides to persuade us to accept his case that the curtailment and removal was punitive and that it was done in violation of the law as laid down by this Court in various decisions.;