JUDGMENT
S.P. Kurdukar, J.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the notification, dated July 24, 1992 revoking appointment of the petitioner made by the 1st Respondent.
2. The 1st Respondent (Administrator) in exercise of his powers under’ Section 17 of the Daman and Diu (Administration) -Regulation, 1987, vide notification, dated 8th November, 1991 appointed the petitioner as Counsellor of the new Pradesh Committee of Union Territory of Daman and Diu with immediate effect. Vide Note, dated 9th July, 1992, swearing-in was also to be held on 31st July, 1992. However, the Administrator on 24th July, 1992 (see Ex. C) revoked the order of appointment of the petitioner. It is this notification which is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition.
3. From the above narration of the facts, it is clear that the petitioner’s appointment came to be revoked vide notification, dated 24th July, 1992 (Ex. C), before swearing-in took place.
4. Mr. Thacker urged that the impugned notification clearly exhibits arbitrary and capricious exercise of the powers conferred on the Administrator. He urged that the impugned notification casts a stigma on the petitioner without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard. He also urged that Section 17 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. Relevant provisions contained in Section 17 read as under : 17(2) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), the Administrator may appoint two persons as Counsellors from amongst the members’ of the Pradesh Council as referred to Clause (c) to (1) of Sub-section (1) of Section (3)
Provided that the first Counsellors appointed by the Administrator under this sub-section shall be the members referred to in Clause (i) of Sub-section (3).
(2) one of the Counsellors appointed under Sub-section (1) shall be from Daman District and the other shall be from Diu District.
(3) A Counsellor shall hold office during the pleasure of the Administrator.
(4)…
(5)…
Section 18 relates to functions of the Counsellors. It reads thus :
18(1) The Administrator may, from time to time, consult any Cousellor or Counsellors on any matter relating to the Administration of the Union Territory and any views expressed by the Counsellor or Counsellors on such matters shall be recommendatory In nature,
(2)…
From the above provisions it is clear that the Counsellor so appointed shall continue in the office “during the pleasure of the Administrator”. In the present case, petitioner was only selected/appointed but oath was not ad-ministered and before oath could be administered, petitioner’s appointment came to be revoked. From the scheme of this Act it appears that the Counsellors are appointed to assist the Administrator and such Counsellor shall hold the Office under Clause (3) of Section 17 “during the pleasure of the Administrator”. Although there are some faint averments regarding mala fides, in the absence of particulars it is not possible to accept any of these averments. It is a simplicitor revocation and there is , no question of any stigma on the petitioner. We are also unable to appreciate the contention that the Administrator has exercised powers either-arbitrarily or capriciously as contended by Mr. Thacker. It is the choice of the Administrator to select a person to assist him in the administration of Union Territory. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned Notification, dated 24th July, 1992. Writ petition to stand summarily rejected.
6. Mr. Thacker applies to stay of notification, dated 27-1-1993 for a period of two weeks, under which new appointments are made they are likely to be sworn in shortly. We do not see any reason to grant stay of the said Notification. Stay refused.