ORDER
D.D. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Shri P. C. Madkholkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Khubalkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Prashant Shende, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was nominated as a Board Member of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Amravati Division, Amravati vide gazette notification published in the official gazette dated 9-9-2002 vide order dated 4-9-2002. The petitioner was appointed in the category of Lecturer in Junior College. The petitioner is sought to be removed by the order dated 9-6-2003 without observing the principles of natural justice and without issuing show-cause notice and, therefore, the action on the part of the respondents is illegal and bad in law,
3. It is contended that no show-cause notice was issued nor any explanation was called before order of removal was passed. The order of removal is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and amounts to abuse of due process of law and, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. Another contention which is canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the power which is with the Government is to dissolve Board before completion of four years tenure and there is no power in relation to the removal of individual member of the Board prior to completion of his tenure as a member. It is alternatively contended that even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that such power does exist, it will be obligatory on the part of the Government to give show-cause notice before any adverse order is passed. Lastly, it is contended that the impugned action of removal of petitioner as a Member of the Board is alleged to have been taken by the respondents under Sub-section (1A) of Section 8 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board (Amendment) Act, 2000. However, the procedure which is provided under this section has not been followed by the respondents. In view of the provisions of the said section, the power can be exercised only to dissolve the entire Board before expiry of its term since the words used in the section are “nominated members of the State Board” and, therefore, there is absence of power to remove individual member of the Board and similarly another requirement is that such order needs to be published in the official gazette by the State Government. The learned Counsel states that this requirement of publishing the order in the official gazette is to be completed by the State Government simultaneously. However, in the instant case, though the order under Sub-section (1-A) of Section 8 of the Act is passed against the petitioner on 1-9-2001, however, till this date same has not been published in the official gazette and, therefore, the whole action of the respondents is vitiated and is null and void. In order to substantiate the contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and Ors. . The relevant observations of the Apex Court read thus :–
“The principle that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all ….. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted….
The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the act of the respondents is de hors of the procedure contemplated under Sub-section (1-A) of Section 8 of the Act and, therefore, the entire order is vitiated and cannot be sustained in law.
5. Shri Khubalkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, contended that the action is taken against the petitioner vide order dated 9-6-2003 in view of the provisions of Sub-section (1-A) of Section 8 of the Act. It is contended that the power which is vested in the State under Sub-section (1-A) is the power to dissolve the entire Board as well as remove the member of the Board before its completion. It is, therefore, contended that in view of such power, the impugned order is valid and sustainable in law.
6. The learned A.G.P. further contended that the members of the Board are holding office during the pleasure of the Government and their term of office can be terminated by the State Government at any time before the expiry of the period of four years and therefore, there is no requirement of issuing show cause notice and the action does not become invalid on this count. The aspect of principles of natural justice in the present case is not attracted.
7. The learned A.G.P. lastly contended that so far as the aspect of publication is concerned, the State could not proceed in this regard in view of the interim order passed by this Court dated 23-6-2003 whereby the effect and operation of the impugned order/communication dated 9-6-2003 is stayed. It is contended that this formality would be completed forthwith if the State is permitted to do so or the interim order is modified.
8. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel. Perused the provisions of Sub-section (1-A) of Section 8 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board (Amendment) Act, 2000 which reads thus :–
“(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), the nominated members of the State Board or of the Divisional Boards shall hold office during the pleasure of the Government and their term of office may, at any time before the expiry of the period of four years, be terminated by the State Government by an order published in the Official Gazette.”
9. The plain reading of the above referred provision makes it clear that the nominated members of the Board shall hold office during the pleasure of the Government and their term can be curtailed before the expiry of four years and the State Government is required to publish the said order in the official gazette. In view of these unambiguous and clear provisions, there is no scope for us to hold that the power of the State Government can be exercised only in case of dissolution of the entire Board and cannot be used to remove or curtail the tenure of the member of the Board. Once we hold that the State Government has a power to dissolve the Board before expiry of four years, then it will be completely inconsistent to arrive at a conclusion that the State Government does not have power to remove a member of the Board prior to completion of four years. When State has a power to dissolve whole Board, power to remove any member of the Board is inherent in the State and, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel in this regard cannot be accepted.
10. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the action of the respondents is violative of principles of natural justice is concerned, it is difficult for us to accept the contention in view of the fact that the member of the Board shall hold office only during the pleasure of the Government and, therefore, undoubtedly, the Government can terminate the tenure any time prior to its completion and such action cannot be vitiated for want of opportunity of hearing. The observations of the Apex Court in this regard in the case of Krishna Bulaji Borate v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. are relevant and has a direct bearing on the issue. The observations in paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Apex Court read thus :–
“Once doctrine of pleasure is applicable neither the principle of natural justice would step in nor any question of giving opportunity before removal would arise……”.
In view of these observations of the Apex Court, the second contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also misconceived and devoid of substance and the same is rejected.
11. So far as the last limb of argument of Mr. Madkholkar that the order of removal passed by the State Government whether concerning member or dissolving Board before completion of its tenure is concerned, no doubt, that the requirement of this section is such order needs to be published in the official gazette. However, it is difficult to appreciate as to how both these things can be done, at the same time. On the other hand, it will be appropriate to hold that till such order is not published in the official gazette, it will not take effect. In the instant case, it is brought to our notice by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that by virtue of the interim order granted by us, the order could not be published in the official gazette. We do not see any infirmity in this regard and, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this respect also cannot be accepted.
12. However, it is needless to mention that the decision of the State Government reflected in the impugned order shall come into force only on the date the order is published in the official gazette.
13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is dismissed.