Age-based disqualification in board appointments upheld; office ended by operation of law and Article 14 challenge failed.

An age-based disqualification in amended Section 5(6) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, read with the validating provision in the Himachal Pradesh Amendment Act, was treated as self-executing and as covering both appointment and continuation in office, so the incumbent's tenure ended by operation of law when the amendment came into force. The Court upheld the amendment against Article 14 challenge, holding that a generally applicable superannuation policy is not invalid merely because it immediately affects one incumbent and that legislative motive does not defeat a statute supported by a rational policy basis. It also held that the writ petition did not fail for non-impleadment of the successor Chairman, as effective relief did not depend on his presence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended age-limit provision in Section 5(6) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the validating provision in Section 3 of the Electricity (Supply) (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1990 brought the incumbent's office as Chairman/Member of the Board to an end. (ii) Whether the Amendment Act was unconstitutional as a case of single-person legislation or arbitrary classification under Article 14. (iii) Whether the writ petition was bad for non-impleadment of the successor Chairman.

Issue (i): Whether the amended age-limit provision in Section 5(6) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the validating provision in Section 3 of the Electricity (Supply) (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1990 brought the incumbent's office as Chairman/Member of the Board to an end.

Analysis: The scheme of the Act was read as conferring the appointment power under Section 5, prescribing the term and reappointment conditions under Section 8, enabling removal or suspension for specified defaults under Section 10, and empowering rule-making under Section 78(2)(a). The amended Section 5(6) introduced disqualification on attaining 65 years and, by the words "or being", covered both initial appointment and continuation in office. The Court treated the provision as self-executing and held that cessation followed by operation of law once the amended provision came into force. Section 3 of the Amendment Act, with its non obstante clause, was also read as retrospectively voiding appointments that conferred a right to continue beyond 65 years, and as applying even where the incumbent had already crossed that age.

Conclusion: The incumbent ceased to hold office on 13.7.90, and the statutory amendments validly operated to end his tenure.

Issue (ii): Whether the Amendment Act was unconstitutional as a case of single-person legislation or arbitrary classification under Article 14.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled doctrine of reasonable classification and upheld the power of the legislature to enact measures of general application even if, at the date of enactment, only one person was affected. It held that the legislative object was to prescribe a uniform age of superannuation for Board members and the Chairman, which was a legitimate policy choice. The fact that the measure happened to affect one incumbent did not make it naked discrimination. The Court also rejected the suggestion of mala fides in legislation and held that legislative motive could not invalidate a statute where the enactment itself disclosed a rational policy basis.

Conclusion: The Amendment Act was not invalid as single-person legislation and did not violate Article 14.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ petition was bad for non-impleadment of the successor Chairman.

Analysis: The relief sought was against the validity of the ordinance and the amendment, not against the successor in any personal capacity. The Court held that effective adjudication did not require the successor's presence, and the appointment made "till further orders" did not make him a necessary party. The cited selection cases were distinguished as involving direct relief affecting selectees, which was not the position here.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not liable to fail for non-impleadment of the successor Chairman.

Final Conclusion: The legislative amendments were upheld, the respondent's tenure was held to have ended by force of law, and the High Court's judgment was set aside with consequential monetary directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute introduces an age-based disqualification in terms covering both appointment and continued holding of office, and the enactment pursues a general policy of superannuation, cessation of office follows by operation of law even if only one incumbent is immediately affected, provided the classification has a rational nexus to the legislative object.

---