N BHOOMANAND MANAY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER holds a post-graduate qualification in engineering from Karnataka (UVCE) and from Yale University, USA. He was nominated as Chairman of the Karnataka State Pollution control Board on 26-2-2004 as per Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act, 1974 (for short, 'the Act') in place of Sri J. Alexander the then Chairman. The said notification made it clear that the terms and conditions of the appointment shall be notified separately. On 12-5-2004 a notification was issued prescribing the period for which he was appointed. The said notification stated that he shall be the Chairman for a period of three years with effect from 26-2-2004 or until further orders. Again by yet another notification dated 14-7-2004 issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5 (9) of the Act read with rule 13 (2) of the Karnataka State Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution (Procedure for Transaction of Business) and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Rules, 1976, the terms and conditions of his appointment were stipulated. Insofar as the period of appointment is concerned what is contained in the notification dated 12-5-2004 was reiterated. The petitioner took charge on 27-2-2004. This appointment was made by the Government before the General Elections of 2004.

(2.) AFTER the Elections new Government took over. They took a decision to seek resignation of all the Directors and Chairmen of various Corporations and Boards who were appointed by the previous Government. In terms of the aforesaid decision some of the Chairmen and Directors of the Board submitted their resignation. Some appear to have refused to tender the resignations. Therefore, instructions were issued by the Chief Minister on 22-7-2005 as per Annexure-F calling upon the Chief Secretary to take steps to receive the resignations from those Chairmen and Directors who have not yet submitted their resignations and in the event they refused to do so they are to be relieved and the Secretaries of those departments should take charge. On coming to know of this decision, the petitioner wrote a letter to ,the Chief Minister bringing to his notice that though he was appointed by the previous Government, it was under the provisions of the Act and he wanted to know whether their decision applies to him also. He received no reply. A similar letter addressed to the Secretary to the Government, Department of Ecology and environment also did not elicit any reply. However, on 22-7-2005 the Secretary to the department of Ecology and Environment took charge from the petitioner. The petitioner addressed on more letter to the Chief Minister and sought his intervention for his continuation as chairman of the Board. When he received no reply he has preferred this petition seeking a declaration that the circular dated 22-7-2005 as per Annexure-F is contrary to the Act and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with his functioning as the Chairman of the Board and for restoration of all facilities and for other consequential reliefs.

(3.) AFTER service of notice the respondents have entered appearance and have filed a detailed counter. Firstly, they contend when once petitioner has voluntarily handed over the charge and he is relieved from duty, he cannot have any grievance against the respondents. Secondly, they contend having handed over charge in pursuance of the circular which is impugned, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the circular. Thirdly, it was contended, the previous incumbent Sri J. Alexander was appointed on 28-12-2002 and he resigned before his term came to an end and the petitioner was appointed in a casual vacancy and, therefore, notwithstanding the term in the appointment order the petitioner cannot claim tenure of three years from the date of notification. He is entitled to the remaining period which comes to an end on 27-12-2005. Fourthly it was contended, when persons are nominated by the Government, the Government has the power to withdraw, cancel or modify the said appointment. As is clear from the appointment order he was appointed for a period of three years or until further orders. Therefore, the term of the office of the petitioner could be curtailed at any time and he cannot insist for three years term. It was also contended that only a person having special knowledge or practical experience was entitled to be appointed as Chairman which qualification the petitioner did not possess and, therefore, his appointment is contrary to law. Therefore, it was contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.