ORDER Mohan, C.J.

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 deputation 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 deputation 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:-

"Sri. R.P. Shavi, Chairman, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, 8th Floor, Public Utility Building, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bangalore.

Sir, Sub:- Appointment of Sri. R.P. Shavi, Chief Engineer as Chairman, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Bangalore terms regarding.

Ref:- Your letter No. KSPCB/EST.l/GOE/ CHM/88-89 9480 dated 24-8-1989.

I am directed to invite reference to your letter dated 24-8-1989 cited above on the subject and to inform you that your term of deputation as Chairman, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Bangalore will be only upto 30-11-1989 since you are retiring on superannuation on that date."

Thereafter, the following notice was issued to the appellant on 4-11-1989.

NOTICE You have been nominated as the Chairman of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board under Section 4(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 under Notification No. DEE 109 ENV 88 dated 8-8-1988.

The Government is of the considered view that it is always in the best interest of the Board to have a person in Government Service as the Chairman of the Board, In fact that has been the policy of the Government as reflected from the practice followed hitherto.

It is seen that you will retire from Government Service on attaining superannuation with effect from, the afternoon of 30th November 1989 and cease to be a Government servant from 1st December, 1989. It is therefore proposed to cancel your nomination as the Chairman of the Pollution Board, with effect from 16-11-1989 forenoon in exercise of the power vested in the Government under Section 5(3) of the aforesaid Act, so as to to enable the Government to nominate some other suitable Government servant who has to his credit adequate duration of service under the Government.

If you have got anything to say with reference to the above proposal, you may please show-cause as to why your nomination as the Chairman of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board should not be cancelled, within one week from the date of the receipt of the notice. If you fail to do so within the stipulated time action as deemed fit will be taken with reference to the proposal reflected herein above."

The appellant replied on 8-11-1989 reiterating his earlier stand and to drop the proposal of retiring him on 30-11-1989 and prayed for allowing him to continue in the office of Chairman till 9-8-1991. That not being agreed to he came forward with Writ Petition No. 20484 of 1989 for a certiorari to quash the notice dated 4-11-1989 and also the consequential prayer of prohibition not to take action pursuant to the notice dated 4-11-1989 and for a direction to continue him till 9-8-1991. Our learned Brother Justice Balakrishna, heard this matter. He was of the view that there was no substance in the contention of the petitioner before him. He was also of the view that under Section 5(3) the Government was competent to remove the petitioner from the post of Chairman. Accordingly he dismissed the Writ Petition. Thus, the Writ Appeal.

2. The teamed Counsel for the appellant urges before us the following points:-

(1) This is not a case in which the appellant had been appointed as Chairman, as Government servant. He was appointed as a Chairman under Section 4(2)(a). As a matter of fact, the said clause does not even talk of a Government servant.

(2) If that be so, having regard to Section 5(1) as a member of the Board, the term will be for a period of three years from the date of nomination.

(3) This is a case in which Section 5(3) cannot apply because there is no question of removing the appellant.

3. We are of the view that neither of these 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.

4. The Notification dated 8th of August 1988 in unequivocal terms says the services of the appellant were placed at the disposal of the Department of Ecology and Environment, of course, for the purposes of appointing as Chairman of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. We are also alive to the situation that it makes a reference under Section 4. When it so makes a reference, regard should be had to Section 4 Clause (a). Section 4 Sub-section (2) Clause (a) reads as follows:-

" (2) A State Board shall consist of the following members namely:-

(a) ...Chairman, being a person having special knowledge or practice, experience in respect of matter relating to environmental protection or a person having knowledge and experience in administering institutions dealing with the matters aforesaid, to be nominated by the State Government;

Provided that the Chairman may be either whole-time or part-time as the State Government may think fit."

It does not even talk of a Government servant. Where, therefore, the services of the appellant are placed at the disposal of the Department of Ecology and Environment for appointment of Chairman and he is deputed to work as the Chairman, he still has a lien in the Government service. If that be so, the order dated 12-12-1988 stating that the deputation shall cease on 30th of November. 1989 is perfectly understandable. It is in consonance with the fact that on that day the appellant ceased to be Government servant. In other words, the period of deputation is co-terminus with the service in the Government and there is no logic with regard to the date 30th of November, 1989. In this connection we may usefully refer to R.N. MISRA v. DELHI ADMINISTRATION, 1985(1) SLR 253:

"Where it was contended that the appointment of the petitioner on deputation to the post of Marketing Officer was for specified period of three years and the said period of deputation could not be reduced or cut short.

The Delhi High Court held:

This Contention, is without substance. The appointment order says that the appointment is for a period of three years till further orders whichever is earlier. The petitioner did not acquire an indefeasible right to hold the post for a period of three years. The Government was competent to terminate the appointment on finding that the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory or that he was not suitable to the post."

5. It stands to reason that if really the appellant attains the age of superannuation on 30th of November, 1989, how is it possible for him to claim to be on deputation. Thereafter we may look at the matter from another point of view. The order of appointment itself, as seen from the order dated 12-12-1988 is for a fixed tenure, namely 30th of November, 1989, in such a case, it is not open to the appellant to invoke the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Act.

6. Section 5(1) which stipulates terms and conditions of service of members says that save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, a member of the Board, other than a Member-Secretary, shall hold, office for a term of three years from the date of his nomination. This sub-section will apply only to a normal case of nomination but not to a case of deputation like the appellant (underlining by us). Where therefore, the appellant is in deputation and he holds the lien in Government service on his ceasing to be the Government servant, he has to lay down the office as Chairman. That is the purpose of the order dated 12-12-1988. Accordingly, we hold that the Writ Appeal carries no merit and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.