TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the power of removal under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1965 could be invoked on the basis of past conduct of a member and whether the expression "activities" was confined to present functioning as a member of the Board; (ii) Whether, even assuming some technical infirmity in the notice or order, the High Court ought to have declined interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having regard to the wider social interest.
Issue (i): Whether the power of removal under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1965 could be invoked on the basis of past conduct of a member and whether the expression "activities" was confined to present functioning as a member of the Board.
Analysis: Section 15(2) authorises removal where, in the opinion of the State Government, the member's activities are detrimental to or obstruct the proper functioning of the Board. The expression is not to be read so narrowly as to exclude prior conduct showing that the person was not fit to be entrusted with the office. A person whose earlier conduct in an examination-related role revealed lack of integrity and whose appointment itself was inconsistent with the standards expected of the Board could legitimately be treated as detrimental to the Board's functioning.
Conclusion: The power of removal was available on the facts, and the respondent's past conduct could be relied upon; the view that Section 15(2) was confined only to present activities was not accepted.
Issue (ii): Whether, even assuming some technical infirmity in the notice or order, the High Court ought to have declined interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having regard to the wider social interest.
Analysis: Relief under writ jurisdiction is discretionary and equitable. Even where an order may suffer from a technical defect, the court must consider whether quashing it would produce greater harm to the public or undermine confidence in administration. On the facts, setting aside the Government's action would have placed a person in an important educational office despite his earlier involvement in conduct adverse to the integrity of examinations, which was considered contrary to public interest and social good.
Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have interfered under Article 226; discretionary writ relief was wrongly granted.
Final Conclusion: The Government's removal order was restored and the writ challenge failed because the Court treated the respondent's prior conduct as relevant to the statutory power and held that equitable writ relief should have been refused in the public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: In writ proceedings, even a technically vulnerable administrative order may be sustained from interference where the statutory ground is substantively made out on the basis of relevant past conduct and where quashing the order would be contrary to public interest.
TaxTMI 
