R.K. ABICHANDANI, J.

(1) LEAVE to amend. Permitted to place impugned order dated 11-7-1995 on record as part of Annexure "a" to the petition.

(2) RULE. Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State. Mr. J. R, Nanavati, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2 - University. Mr. Y. S. Lakhani, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 12 and 14. Mr. V. H. Patel, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioners craves leave to delete respondent nos. 4 to 9, 11, 13, IS and 16. These respondent Nos. 4 to 9, 11,13, 15 and 16 are permitted to be deleted. At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for these parties, the matter is finally heard and is being disposed of.

(3) THE petitioners who were nominated by the State Government as members of the Senate under the provisions of Sec. 16 (1) - Class II (B) of the Saurashtra university Act, 1965 have challenged the order dated 11/07/1995 passed by the State Government cancelling their nominations, alongwith the nominations of 10 other persons and nominating 12 fresh members in their place. They have also challenged the consequential circular issued by the respondent No. 2 - University.

(4) TWELVE members including the petitioners were nominated to the Senate by the State Government by its order dated 23-5-1992. The petitioners were nominees alongwith 10 other persons. According to the petitioners, the term of their office was of 5 years and therefore, they were entitled to continue till 20/05/1997. The impugned order cutting short their term and nominating 12 new members, according to them, is in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 16 (2) of the said act. It was submitted that the State Government could not have curtailed the term of their office of five years merely with a view to nominate 12 members of their choice. The stand of the State Government is that a person nominated has no right to hold the office for five years. The provision of Sec. 16 (2) refers to the term of office of five years and does not say that the nominee of the State Government shall be entitled to hold the office for a period of five years. It was submitted that the concept of nomination itself implied that the authority nominating the member can always withdraw him. The act of nomination is left to the subjective satisfaction of the State Government and therefore: according to the Assistant Government pleader, doctrine of pleasure of the State Government could be invoked ~and the nominees can hold office only during the pleasure of the State Government unless allowed to continue to remain in the office for a period of five years. It was also argued that effective dialogue would not be possible and the Government policies will not be effectively represented if the persons nominated by the previous government were allowed to continue. It was contended that the purpose underlying the provisions empowering the State. Government to nominate members was to ensure that the policies of the State Government were effectively represented in the senate through these nominees. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this High court in the case of Harisinh Pratapsinh Chavda v. Chimanbhai J. Patel, Chief minister and Ors. , reported in [1991 (1)1 32 (1) GLR 667 and of the Delhi High court in the case of Ghanshyam Singh v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in AIR 1991 Delhi 59 in support of the contention that it was open to the State Government to recall these nominees.

(5) THE provision of Sec. 16 (1) - Class II (B) of the said Act inter-alia provides that the Senate shall consist of 12 members to be nominated from amongst distinguished educationists, social workers, trade unions, representatives of backward communities, women and such other class of persons. Section 16 (2) provides that the term of the office of the elected members and of the members referred to Class II (B) shall be of five years. Proviso to sub-sec. (2) is in context of ordinary members elected by Bhavnagar Municipality, who were holding office before the deletion of the relevant clause by amendment made in this Act by the provisions of the bhavnagar University Act, 1978. These ordinary members under this proviso ceased to hold office on and from the date on which the amendment had come into force and that proviso is not relevant for our purpose except for the purpose of noticing that there is no other exception or limitation carved out in respect of term of office of five years provided in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 16. Section 56 of the act indicates that the office of any member of any Authority or Body of the University may fall vacant by his resignation or if any member is convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude. Section 57 provides that when vacancies occur in the office of a member of any Authority or Body, before the expiry of the term of office the vacancy shall be filled up by election, nomination, appointment or co-option as the case may be. The scheme of the provisions of Sees. 16 (2), 56 and 57 would clearly indicate that a member of any Authority or Body would continue for the period of the term of his office unless a vacancy arises. It was submitted that unlike Sec. 10 (4) which provided that the Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a term of 3 years, there was no entitlement conferred on a nominated member to hold office for a period of five years under Sec~ 16 (2) and it is only the term of office that was prescribed for a period of five years. That would be begging the question. If the provision lays down that the tenure of office will be of five years, then ordinarily a person who holds that office wilt have a right to continue for a period of five years. Otherwise, there is no sense in prescribing the period of term of office. The person who is nominated by the State Government may resign, in which event the state Government can nominate another person for the remainder of the period. If such person is convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude, then also the state Government may appoint another person for the remainder of the period. If a nominated member dies then too by virtue of Sec. 57, the State Government can appoint another person. One can even say that if nominated member is dismissed by State Government invoking the provisions of Sec. 16 of the Bombay General clauses Act, 1904, in absence of any specific provision in the for removal of the nominated member, then too the State Government may be in a position to nominate another, member for the remaining period. It is, however, clear that the impugned order does not purport to dismiss the members who are nominated and the order is not made under the provisions of Sec. 16 of the Bombay General Clauses act, 1904. However, when a person is appointed to an office, the term of which is statutorily prescribed, he cannot be disturbed before that term expires, except on a legitimate ground.

(6) IT was urged that the persons nominated as members to the Senate by the state Government are expected to represent the policies of the State Government. This submission is contrary to the very scheme of the. The authorities of the university prescribed under Sec. 15 of the are statutorily constituted and expected to exercise their statutory powers as collective bodies. There is no direct government control over them in connection with the discharge of their functions. The members who are required to be nominated by the State Government to the senate are supposed to represent the class of distinguished educationists, social workers, trade unions, representatives of backward communities, women and similar other classes. They are not required to represent any policy of the State Government in the functioning of the University. The idea behind empowering the State government to nominate members from amongst these classes which are statutorily prescribed is to ensure that these classes are effectively represented. The purpose underlying nomination under the said provision can never be to provide a representative of the State Government in the sense of an agent of the State government who has to look after the interests of the State Government. The State government being in a better position to find out proper persons from these various classes which are nominated in Sec. 16 (1)- Class II (B), is empowered to nominate 12 members. The word "nominated" in the said provision clearly is used in the sense of appointment. : These persons are appointed by the State Government to the senate. Once that nomination is done, they form part of the Senate which is constituted under Sec. 16 of the. The Senate is an independent educational body which also has State Officials as its Ex-Officio Members. To expect the representatives of distinguished educationists, social workers, trade unions, representatives of backward communities, women and other similar classes to act as per the directives of the State Government and not to be concerned about the classes whom they represent, is to distort the provisions of the said Act for a narrow advantage. The fact that the representatives of these various classes were got nominated by the State government will not make them puppets of the State Government. They will be free to act as members in the Senate and need not take their commands from the state Government. Their duty would only be to look after the interests of various classes which they are supposed to represent. That would be more conducive to a better educational system and will be in keeping with the concept of autonomy of such educational Institutions. The mere fact that the State Government is empowered to nominate members on the basis of the objective standards indicated in Sec. 16 (1)- Class II (B) will not empower the State Government to keep a constant control over these members. This surely does not militate against the powers of the State government which it may have of dismissing a member at a given point of time by invoking the provisions of Sec. 16 of the Bombay General Clauses Act but, such an exercise will entail a different course and would even include an opportunity of being heard to be given to the nominated member who would have ordinarily continued for a period of five years. When the law provides that the term of office of a nominated member would be of five years, it would mean that a person who has been nominated is entitled to continue in the office for a period of five years unless he has been lawfully removed. In this view of the matter, the contentions raised of behalf of the respondent - State Government cannot be accepted.

(7) MUCH reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Harisinh Chavda (supra). It will be noticed that, that was a case wherein the question of the tenure of office of Chairman of Water Supply and Sewerage Board was involved. In Sec. 6 (1) of the Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1978, while providing that the chairman unless appointed Ex-officio, shall hold office for 3 years, it is clearly laid down that his term of office may be determined earlier by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette. The term of the Chairman was, therefore, clearly subject to the pleasure of the Government while in the instant case the term of office was statutorily prescribed as 5 years with no option to the State Government of determining it earlier as was provided under the proviso to Sec. 6 (1) of the gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1978. It will also be noticed that under Sec. 68 of that Act in the performance of its duties and discharge of its functions, the Board is required to be guided by the directions on questions of policy as may be given to it, from time to time, by the State Government, in writing. It is in that context that the Chairman of such a Board which is required to follow the directives of the State Government is required to hold office only during the pleasure of the State Government and the State Government was statutorily empowered to curtail the normal period of office of 3 years. In the present case, the Senate is independent Body expected to impartially act and the 12 nominated members are expected to represent various classes from which they are appointed and not to dance to the tunes of the directives of the State Government. The interest of the classes they represent is to be more dear to them than any fluctuating government policies. The idea underlining the provisions of the said Act is clearly to See that the purity of the educational stream does not get vitiated and the autonomous educational Bodies are left free to follow their course for attaining higher goals in the filed of education.

(8) RELIANCE was also placed on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in ganshyam Singh (supra) more particularly on the observation that even if the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 41 of the multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1941 which provided that a person nominated under sub-sec. (1) shall hold office during the pleasure of the Government by which he was nominated, were not there, even then by virtue of the provisions of ;sec. 16 of the General Clauses Act such nomination could be rejected. The provisions of the said Sec. 41 of the multi-State co-operative Societies Act, read as under :-

"41 (1) Where the Central Government or a State Government has subscribed to the share capital of a multi-State Co-operative Society or has guaranteed the repayment of principal and payment of interest on debentures issued by a multi-State co-operative Society or has guaranteed the repayment of principal and payment of interest on loans and advances to a multi-State Co-operative Society, the Central government or the State Government in this behalf, as the case may be, or any person authorised by the Central Government or the State Government, shall have the right to nominate on the Board such number of persons as may be prescribed. (2) The bye-laws of a multi-State Go-operative Society may provide for the nomination of persons in excess of the limits prescribed under sub-sec. (1). (3) A person nominated under this section shall hold office during the pleasure of the Government by which he has been so nominated. "

From the above provisions of Sec. 41 of the said Act, it becomes at once clear that the nominee who is appointed under that provision is appointed specially to look after the interest of the State Government. He is not on the same footing as a person nominated under Sec. 16 (1) - Class II (B) from amongst distinguished educationists, social workers, trade unions, representatives of backward communities, women and other similar classes who are required to represent the interest of those classes. The purpose underlying nomination under Sec. 41 (1) of the multi-State Cooperative societies Act is to safeguard the interest of the State Government which has subscribed to the share capital of the State Government or has guaranteed to reply the amount of principal and interest etc. , Such a nominee will be an agent of the State Government which concept is entirely different from nomination of a member to the Senate from amongst certain specified classes. In the latter situation, the word "nomination" has the meaning of only an appointment and not of sending an agent to look after the interest of the State Government or to be the spokesman of the State Government. Therefore, the decision in the case of Ghanshyam Singh (supra) cannot assist the petitioners.

(9) IN this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 11-7-1995 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside, being in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 16 (2) of the said Act. The impugned circular issued by the University as a consequence of the said order is also hereby set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. At this stage, the +learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State government prays for stay of the order. The legal position is quite clear and the impugned order is patently bad and illegal and therefore, there is absolutely no reason to stay the order. Hence, the request cannot be acceded to and is rejected.