M B PURANIK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in W.P.No.39218/2013 are before this Court assailing the notification dated 22.08.2013 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. During the pendency of the said petition, since the interim order had been granted and the petitioners were continuing as the Managing Committee of the Karnataka Goseva Ayoga which had been constituted, they are seeking that necessary infrastructure be provided to carry on its activities and therefore the petition in W.P.No.17199/2014 is filed.

(2.) The issues raised in the subsequent petition will arise and depend on the consideration that is to be made in W.P.No.39218/2013. In that regard, the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the appointment of the petitioners to the Goseva Ayoga is not a pleasure appointment, but as a tenure appointment for the period of three years as provided under the notification dated 05.02.2013 at Annexure-B to the petition. In that light, it is contended that the notification dated 22.08.2013 at Annexure-A is not sustainable as by the said notification, the appointment of the petitioners is sought to be terminated prior to the expiry of the three years period for which the petitioners are entitled to continue. It is the case of the petitioners that the notification impugned dated 22.08.2013 is not sustainable.

(3.) The respondents have filed their objection statement and have sought to justify their action. It is contended that by the notification dated 05.02.2013, the appointment to the Board can be made up to a period of three years and not necessarily for three years period. In that view, it is their case that depending on the nature of appointment made, it can also be terminated at any time prior to the expiry of three years and the appointment made in the instant case is not for the period of three years. In that direction, the notification dated 15.02.2013 by which the petitioners were appointed is referred, to point out that the order itself indicates that the appointment is until further orders and as such at any point prior to the period of three years, fresh orders could be passed and the appointment could be brought to an end. Hence, the order impugned is sought to be justified.