Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The finding of disqualification given in the earlier round of litigation while the appellant was holding a lien on the post of Chief Engineer i.e. while he was an officer of the Board, ceased to hold good after the appellant retired from the service of the Board on 31.1.2004 (AN) and the appointment impugned in the second round of litigation was effective from 1.2.2004 after the appellant had ceased to be an officer of the Board.

Contractual appointment/powers of the Government Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the Trade Union, fairly conceded that the Government has unrestricted power to make contractual appointment. Even otherwise, the Government, in our opinion, has the undoubted power to make a contractual appointment until further orders. The finding to the contrary is ex facie erroneous.

The Notification dated 31.1.2004 clearly states that the appointment is on contract basis and until further orders. While laying down the terms of appointment in its order dated 21.4.2004, the Government of Karnataka clearly stated that "term of contractual appointment of Sri B. Srinivasa Reddy shall commence on 1st February, 2004 and will be in force until further orders of the Government and this is a temporary appointment." Section 6(1) of the Act categorically states that the Managing Director shall hold office during the pleasure of the Government. Power and functions of the of the Board are laid in Chapter V of the Act. A reading of the Act clearly shows that neither the Board nor its Managing Director is entrusted with any sovereign function. Black's Law Dictionary defines public office as under:

The Division Bench noted that certain allegations were made against the appellant and observed in paragraph 3 that the complaint was stated to be pending before the Lokyukta in the matter relating to financial irregularities of the Board and that the Comptroller and Auditor General submitted a report for the year ending 31.3.2000 wherein the appellant has paid the amounts to contractor even before they became due resulting in loss of interest of Rs.15.40 lakhs to the Board. However, the Division Bench did not take notice of that fact that Lokayukta had completely exonerated the appellant. Until further orders Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the pleasure of the Government and discretion cannot be completely discretionary and at the ipse dixit of the executive. Even a contractual appointment has to be made with a certain ascertainable period and cannot be open-ended. According to him, use of words "until further orders" is not a safety notch but is rather prone to misuse. Even in the constitutional scheme, under Chapter XIV of the Constitution, a contractual appointment presumes a specific period. Art. 310(2) of the Constitution provides that:

(e) The Government has no doubt power to make contractual appointment until further orders. The power included the power to make appointment on substantive basis temporary, officiating basis, ad hoc basis, daily wages or contractual basis.

(f) Writ filed by respondents 1 & 2 is motivated.

(g) The petitioners in the writ petition, respondent No.1 herein which is an unregistered Association under the Trade Unions Act cannot maintain the writ petition.

(h) The findings of legal mala fides is unsustainable and has no basis.