B.M. Lal, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing impugned orders dt. 4 -8 -1993 contained in Annexures 8 and 9 to this petition. It appears that Government of Uttar Pradesh Vide it's G.O. No. 10491/Char -7(1)/76, constituted 'Uttar Pradesh Sanskrit Academy' on 31st December 1976, which is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner was nominated as Chairman of the aforesaid Academy vide G.O. dated 29 -7 -1992 with the approval of Governor, for the period ending on 28 -2 -1995, (vide Annexure 2 to the petition). However, vide G.O. dt. 26 -2 -1993 (Annexure 6 to the petition) aforesaid G.O. dated 29 -7 -92 was cancelled with immediate effect by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter in a writ petition filed before this Court operation of aforesaid G.O. dated 26 -2 -1993 was stayed by this Court, vide order dated 13 -4 -1993. In between, Government of Uttar Pradesh vide Government orders dated 4 -8 -1993 (Annexures 8 and 9 to the petition) withdrew aforesaid G.O. dated 26 -2 -1993 and reconstituted General Body and Executive Council of the Academy. Hence this petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that since operation of G.O. dated 26 -2 -1993 was stayed by this Court and the matter was sub -judice before this Court, hence there was no reason or justification, power or jurisdiction to the Government of Uttar Pradesh to withdraw the G.O. dated 26 -2 -1993. It was further contended that once the tenure of Committee was fixed till 28 -3 -1995, there was no right, power or jurisdiction with the Government of Uttar Pradesh to curtail the same and constitute a fresh Committee, therefore, impugned orders deserve to be quashed. Suffice to say present one is a case of nomination and not appointment. There is difference between the nomination and appointment. In the matters of appointment, the appointee gets right to hold the office during the tenure for which he is appointed but in the matters of nomination, position becomes different except in certain cases where the nomination is governed by the statutory provisions. In the instant case, the nomination is not governed by the statutory provisions, rather power of nomination vests in the Government and the Government exercises the same in its executive functions, therefore, doctrine of pleasure cannot be lost sight of. It is the pleasure of Authority to nominate and cancel the nomination but no right accrues to the nominee to hold the office for a particular period. The nominating authority is fully empowered to nominate one person, to rescind or cancel the same and again nominate any other person according to exigencies of situation, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order impugned in this petition.
(3.) SO far as the first part of the argument to the effect that since G.O. dated 26 -2 -93 was stayed by this Court, consequently it was not possible for the Government to withdraw the same, is concerned, we are of the opinion that staying operation of any order means that the same cannot be given effect to but it does not mean that the authority concerned can not cancel or rescind, recall or withdraw the same because rescinding, cancelling, recalling or withdrawing any order cannot amount, by any stretch of imagination, giving effect to that order. Accordingly the argument is repelled. In view of the premises aforesaid, writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, dismissed.;