Minimum tenure rules may permit extension where the statute fixes no maximum and supports administrative continuity.

Statutory tenure rules for the Director of Enforcement were read as fixing a minimum term of two years, not a maximum, because Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 overrides inconsistent service rules and is aimed at independence and continuity. On that basis, appointment beyond two years was held permissible. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was treated as supporting variation or extension of the appointment order where the statute does not prohibit it, so the tenure extension was upheld. The challenge based on malice in law also failed because the extension was recommended by the prescribed committee and supported by public interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Director of Enforcement could validly be appointed for a period exceeding two years under Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003; (ii) whether the Central Government could extend the tenure of the Director of Enforcement by invoking Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897; (iii) whether the impugned extension was vitiated by malice in law.

Issue (i): Whether the Director of Enforcement could validly be appointed for a period exceeding two years under Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.

Analysis: The statutory scheme places the appointment of the Director of Enforcement on the recommendation of the prescribed committee and provides that the Director shall continue to hold office for a period of not less than two years. The non-obstante clause gives overriding effect to Section 25 over other laws, including Fundamental Rule 56. The expression 'not less than two years' was construed as prescribing a minimum tenure, not a maximum tenure, and the provision was read consistently with the object of securing independence and continuity in office.

Conclusion: The appointment for a period beyond two years was held to be permissible in law.

Issue (ii): Whether the Central Government could extend the tenure of the Director of Enforcement by invoking Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Analysis: Section 21 was treated as a rule of construction applicable to Central Acts unless excluded by context or subject-matter. Since Section 25 did not fix a maximum tenure and did not prohibit extension, the power to appoint for a period beyond two years was held to be consistent with the power to amend or vary the appointment order. The earlier order was also amended through the same statutory committee mechanism and in the manner contemplated by Section 21.

Conclusion: The extension of tenure under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned extension was vitiated by malice in law.

Analysis: The record showed that the extension was made on the recommendation of the high-powered committee constituted under Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and was justified on public interest grounds relating to ongoing investigations. No material was shown to establish an unauthorised purpose or abuse of power.

Conclusion: The plea of malice in law was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The statutory framework was interpreted to permit a minimum tenure of two years and, in appropriate cases, extension beyond that period. The impugned action was sustained, and no further extension was permitted in the facts of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a minimum tenure and does not fix a maximum tenure, the tenure may be extended consistently with the statute and the general power to vary an order, unless such extension is excluded by the statutory context or subject-matter.

---