R P SHAVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) a simple case unfortunately took a turn to unnecessary argument. The appellant before us was originally in the secretariat as superintending engineer, later on promoted as chief engineer, public works department. By notification dated 8th of august, 1988 his services were placed at the disposal of the department of ecology and environment for appointing as chairman, Karnataka state pollution control board. By the same notification, he was appointed with immediate effect and until further orders under Section 4 of the water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974 as chairman of Karnataka state pollution control board, Bangalore. As a sequel to this, an order was passed on 12-12-1988 which in unequivocal terms stated that the period of depution will end by the 30th of november, 1989. Therefore, a notice was given on 4-11-1989. On 24-8-1989, the appellant wrote to the secretary to the government, department of personnel and administrative reforms, Bangalore, referring to the deputation being limited to 30th of november, 1989 and alleging that as per Section 5(1) of the act as a chairman and as a member of the board, he was entitled to hold office for a period of three years from the date of his nomination. Accordingly, his term as a chairman which has commenced on 10-8-1988 will expire on 9-8-1991. He further stated that the continuation of his depution would be immaterial for holding the post as chairman. To this, a reply emanated from the department of personnel and administrative reforms on 11-10-1989 as follows:-

(2.) the learned counsel for the appellanturges before us the following points:-

(3.) we are of the view that neither oilthese contentions could be held to be tenable. It is already seen in the narration of facts that the appellant was in the service of the Karnataka government. Admittedly, had he continued in government service, he would have retired on 30-11-1989, on attaining the age of superannuation. If this is kept in the back-ground, all the questions of law which are urged before the learned judge and which are reiterated before us, will have no place.