R. C. MANKAD, J. ( 1 ) APPLICANT-ORIGINAL petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2603 of 1990 has filed this Application alleging that Government of Gujaratopponent herein has willfully and deliberately contravened the interim relief granted by this Court on 23/05/1990 and thereby committed contempt of this Court and praying that the opponent-Government be directed to comply with said interim relief and to restore status quo ante. ( 2 ) FACTS leading to this Application briefly stated are as follows : applicant was appointed as Member of Gujarat Panchayat Service selection Board ("board" for short) by an order dated 17/04/1975 under Clause 3 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board (Condition of Service) Order, 1964 ("order" for short) read with Sec. 210 of the gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 ("act" for short ). Applicant was again appointed as Member of the Board for a period of six years with effect from 18/04/1981. He was appointed as Chairman of the Board with effect from 14/10/1981. By an order dated 16/04/1987 applicant was appointed as Member of the Board till further orders of the Government. According to the applicant though the last order dated 16/04/1987 stated to the effect that he was appointed as member of the Board till further orders of the Government, his appointment should be deemed to be for a term of six years commencing from 16/04/1987. He was, therefore, entitled to continue as Member of the Board till 15/04/1993. ( 3 ) AFTER the election of the Legislative Assembly in February 1990 new government assumed office. The new Government, it is alleged, made announcement that all appointees of the State Corporation and Boards who were appointed by the former Government, should resign. It is further alleged that it was suggested to the applicant to resign as Member and Chairman of the Board. The applicant, however, did not resign. The applicant apprehending that his appointment as member and Chairman of the Board would be terminated, filed petition being special Civil Application No. 2603 of 1990 seeking injunction against the government from terminating his appointment as Member and Chairman of the board and from interfering with the discharge of his duties and functions as such Member and Chairman. It is not necessary for us to set out the grounds on which this relief was sought. It is not necessary for us to set out the grounds on which this relief was sought. The learned single Judge before whom this petition came up for hearing issued notice pending admission and granted ad interim relief restraining the Government from terminating the appointment of application as Member and Chairman of the Board and from interfering with the discharge of his duties and functions as such Member and Chairman. Thereafter, on 23/05/1990 after hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant and the Government the learned single Judge admitted the petition and confirmed the ad interim relief granted by him. The interim relief granted by the learned single Judge is at Annexure "a" to this Application and it is in the following terms :"it is hereby accordingly ordered that ad interim relief granted by this Court on 23-9-1990 be and is hereby continued, viz. you, your servants and agents be and are hereby restrained from terminating the appointment of the petitioner as Chairman and as Member of the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board and from interfering with the discharge of his duties and functions and further allowing the petitioner to perform his duties and functions as Chairman and Member of the Gujarat Panchayat service Selection Board without any hindrance or obstacle, till further orders". ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions which are raised before us it is necessary to refer to Sec. 210 of the Act. It may be mentioned here that Sec. 210 has been amended by amending Act called Gujarat Panchayats (Second amendment) Act, 1989 and Gujarat Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1990. By the Amending Act of 1989 sub-sec. (3a) was inserted and by Amending Act of 1990 sub-sec. (3b) was inserted. Section 210 of the Act before its amendment by amending Acts of 1989 and 1990 read as follows :"210. Gujarat Panchayat Service Selections Board, its constitution and functions: (1) There shall be established a Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board consisting of three members including the Chairman. (2) At least one of the members of the Board shall be a person who is a member of the State Service or has retired from service. (3) Subject to sub-secs. (1) and (2), the State Government shall appoint as members of the Board such persons as it may think fit and out of the persons so appointed appoint one person as the Chairman of the Board. (3) Subject to sub-secs. (1) and (2), the State Government shall appoint as members of the Board such persons as it may think fit and out of the persons so appointed appoint one person as the Chairman of the Board. (4) The conditions of service (including pay and allowances) of the members of the board shall be such as the State Government may by order determine. (5) It shall be the duty of the Board to select candidates for recruitment to such posts in the Panchayat service, and to advise the Panchayat in such matters as may be prescribed by rules. (6) The Board shall perform such other functions as provided by or under this Act". ( 5 ) SUB-SEC. (3a), which was inserted by Amending Act of 1989, reads as follows :" (3a) A member of the Board shall hold office for a term of six years from the date he enters upon his office or until he attains the age of sixty-two years, whichever is earlier and shall be eligible for re-appointment to that office for a further term of six years only : provided that no person appointed as member shall continue to hold his office as such after he attains the age of sixty-two years". ( 6 ) SUB-SEC. (3b), which was inserted by Amending Act of 1990, reads as follows :" (3b) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, a member who has held office as such for an aggregate period of twelve years or more from the date he first entered upon his office at any time before the commencement of the Gujarat Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1990 shall, on such commencement, cease to hold such office". ( 7 ) IN exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 210 of the Act, Government issued Order called the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board (Conditions of Service) Order, 1964. Clause 3 of the Order provides for the temr for which a Member of the Board shall hold office. According to said Clause a Member of the Board shall hold office for a term of six years from the date he enters upon his office or until he attains the age of 62 years whichever is earlier. The government may extend the term of his office from time to time but not beyond the date on which he attains the age of 62 years. The government may extend the term of his office from time to time but not beyond the date on which he attains the age of 62 years. It is on the basis of this Clause that applicant contends that his appointment should be deemed to be for a term of six years when he was appointed as Member of the Board till further orders of the Government by the order dated 16/04/1987 adverted to above. It is not necessary for us to enter into merits of this contention at this stage since the applicants petition is already admitted. ( 8 ) AFTER sub-sec. (3b) was inserted in Sec. 210 of the Act by the amending Act of 1990, the Government by an order dated 5/07/1990 appointed a new Member for a term of six years and appointed him as chairman of the Board. It would appear that in view of the provisions of sub-sec. (3b) of Sec. 210 of the Act, the Government was of the view that the applicant had ceased to hold office as Member and consequently as Chairman and it was, therefore, that appointment of new Member and chairman was made. The applicant contends that by appointment of new member and Chairman, the Government has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the directions given by this Court by the interim relief granted in his favour and has thereby committed contempt of this Court. It is prayed that the government be directed to purge itself of contempt and to comply with the directions given by this Court under the interim relief. It may be mentioned here that the applicant has amended his petition and challenged the validity of sub-sec. (3b) of Sec. 210 of the Act which, as stated above, was inserted by Amending Act of 1990. However, it is not necessary to set out the grounds on which the validity of the said provision is challenged since they are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this application. The question which arises for our consideration is whether the Government could be said to have committed contempt of this Court by willfully and deliberately disobeying the directions given under the interim relief. ( 9 ) IT may be recalled that under sub-sec. The question which arises for our consideration is whether the Government could be said to have committed contempt of this Court by willfully and deliberately disobeying the directions given under the interim relief. ( 9 ) IT may be recalled that under sub-sec. (3a) of Sec. 210 of the Act a member of the Board shall hold office for a term of six years from the date he enters upon the office or until he attains the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier and shall be eligible for re-appointment to that office for a further term of six years only provided that no person appointed as Member shall continue to hold his office as such after he attains the age of 62 years. It would thus appear that by this provision the intention of the Legislature is to restrict the term of office of Members of the Board. Sub-sec. (3b) to Sec. 210 of the Act, which was inserted by the Amending Act of 1990, lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, a member who has held office as such for an aggregate period of twelve years or more from the date he first entered upon his office at any time before the commencement of the Amending Act of 1990 shall, on such commencement, cease to hold such office. The intention of the Legislature in inserting the said provision, as stated in the statement of objects and reasons, is in the following terms :"the intention of the Legislature behind the insertion of the said sub-sec. (3a) in Sec. 210 was to restrict the term of office of members of the Board for two term only i. e. for not more than twelve years. With a view to making the said intention clear and removing any scope for ambiguity in this behalf, it is considered necessary to insert new sub-sec. (3b) in the said Sec. 210 to provide that a member who has held office as such for an aggregate period of twelve years or more from the date he first entered upon his office at any time before the coming into force of new sub-sec. (3b) of Sec. 210 shall, on such commencement, cease to hold such office. This Bill seeks to insert new sub-sec. (3b) in Sec. 210 to provide accordingly". (3b) of Sec. 210 shall, on such commencement, cease to hold such office. This Bill seeks to insert new sub-sec. (3b) in Sec. 210 to provide accordingly". It would thus appear that the intention of the Legislature in inserting sub-sec. (3a) is to restrict the term of the office of the Member of the board for not more than 12 years and it is with a view to make the said intention clear and removing any scope for ambiguity in that behalf that sub-sec. (3b) was inserted in Sec. 210 of the Act. It is not disputed that as a result off insertion of sub-sec. (3b) in Sec. 210 of the Act, the applicant would cease to hold office as member and consequently as chairman of the Board. ( 10 ) IT is, however, contended on behalf of the applicant that although the applicant would cease to hold office under sub-sec. (3b) of Sec. 210 of the act, the Government could not have made appointment of new Member and chairman till the interim relief granted by this Court was in operation. It is submitted that even if the applicant had ceased to hold office as Member under the said provision, the Government could not have taken follow-up action of appointing the new Member and in any case the Chairman in view of the interim relief. According to the applicant the only course open to Government was to move this Court for vacation of interim relief and it could have appointed new chairman only after the Court had vacated the interim relief. The Government, however, without approaching this Court and acting on the provision contained in sub-sec. (3b) appointed new Member and Chairman. It has, therefore, deliberately disobeyed the order of the Court. It is submitted that whenever there is a conflict between the act of Legislature and the order of the Court, it is not open to the Government to act on the basis of the act of the Legislature without approaching the Court for vacating the direction or interim relief given by it. It is these circumstances that the Government is alleged to have committed contempt of the Court. ( 11 ) WE do not see any substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant. As a result of insertion of sub-sec. It is these circumstances that the Government is alleged to have committed contempt of the Court. ( 11 ) WE do not see any substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant. As a result of insertion of sub-sec. (3b) in Sec. 210 of the Act, the applicant ceased to hold office as Member of the Board and, therefore, he could not have continued as Member and Chairman of the Board. It was on account of the act of Legislature that the applicant ceased to hold office as member and Chairman and not on account of any act on the part of the Government. the Government had not terminated appointment of the applicant. It was only because the applicant ceased to hold office as member and Chairman of the Board new appointment of Member and chairman was made. It may incidentally be mentioned that it was conceded by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the Government could have appointed new Member, but according to him, it could not have appointed the new Member as Chairman since the applicant continued to be member and Chairman under the interim relief granted by this Court. In our opinion, the applicant ceased to be the Member of the Board under sub-sec. (3b) of Sec. 210 of the Act and, therefore, he could not have continued as chairman. Under these circumstances, if the Government has made appointment of new Chairman it is difficult to come to the conclusion that it has committed contempt of the Court by willfully and deliberately violating directions given by this Court under interim relief. It may be mentioned here that the Amending Act of 1990 came into force on 28/06/1990 - the date on which the Governor gave assent to the amending Act. Therefore, it was on that date that the applicant ceased to be the member of the Board. New appointment was made on July 5, 1990 after the applicant had already ceased to be the Member and Chairman of the Board. ( 12 ) IT was contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant had amended his petition and challenged the validity of the Amending act of 1990. New appointment was made on July 5, 1990 after the applicant had already ceased to be the Member and Chairman of the Board. ( 12 ) IT was contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant had amended his petition and challenged the validity of the Amending act of 1990. Since the amendment has been granted by this Court it takes effect from the date of the petition and, therefore, the interim relief granted by this court should be taken to have been granted after the amendment of the petition. In other words, according to the learned Counsel the interim relief should be deemed to have been granted after he challenged the Amending Act of 1990. We do not find any substance in this argument. The date on which the petition was filed and the date on which the interim relief was granted there was no amending Act of 1990 in force. We, therefore, fail to see how the interim relief could be deemed to have been granted after the amendment of the petition and keeping in view the Amending Act of 1990. We do not think we should say anything more than this to repel the argument of the learned Counsel. ( 13 ) UNDER the circumstances, in our opinion, the Government could not be held guilty of having committed contempt of Court. Therefore, no relief, as prayed for by the applicant, can be granted. In the result this Application fails and is rejected. .