D. N. Chowdhury, J. — These two writ appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 27.4.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No.4873 of 1997 and Civil Rule 4932 of 1997 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the petitions and set aside the notification dated 29.9.97 (Annexure D to the Civil Rule No.4932 of 1997) with a direction to restore the petitioner in the post of Managing Director of the Board. The Civil Rule No.4873 of 1997 was presented by the petitioner challenging the threatened action of the respondents of removing the petitioner from the post of Managing Director of the Board and sought a direction to allow him to continue as Managing Director of the Board for three years from the date of his appointment ie from 16.7.97 in terms of the provisions of section 5 of the Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1985 (hereinafter shall be referred to as *Act').In Civil Rule No. 4932 of 1997 the petitioner questioned the legality and validity of the notification dated 29.9.97 whereby the Governor of Assam was pleased to determine the terms of office of the petitioner as Managing Director of the Board and discontinued the tenure of service with effect from the date of his superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years as no 30.9.97. 2. The petitioner at all relevant time was holding a post under the State of Assam. While he was holding the post of Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Municipal Administration Department by notification bearing No.AAA.3/96/102 dated 16th July, 1997 he was transferred and his services were placed at the-disposal of the Municipal Administration for appointment as Managing Director, Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Guwahati (hereinafter it shall be referred to as Board). By a notification bearing No.74/95/4 dated 16th July, 1997 the petitioner, a member of Assam Civil Service was appointed under the provisions of section 5 of the Board as a Managing Director. In terms of appointment the petitioner took over the charge of office of the Managing Director of the Board on 17.7.97. By a notification bearing No.74/95/4 dated 16th July, 1997 the petitioner, a member of Assam Civil Service was appointed under the provisions of section 5 of the Board as a Managing Director. In terms of appointment the petitioner took over the charge of office of the Managing Director of the Board on 17.7.97. By a notification bearing No. MA 74/95/10 dated 29th September, 1997, the Governor of Assam in exercise of power conferred by sub­section (2) read with sub-section (1) of section (1) of the Act determined the terms of office of the petitioner as Managing Director of the Board and to discontinue as such Managing Director with effect from the date of his superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years on 30.9.97. In the writ petition the petitioner mainly contended that the post of Managing Director of the Board which the petitioner at the relevant time was holding was a tenure post and as such he is entitled to complete the tenure of three years of service irrespective of his superannuation from the original service ie. the Assam Civil Service. 3. The State of Assam contested the writ petitions and submitted its affidavit denying and disputing the stand of the petitioner and justified the impugned order of determination of services. The appellants in Writ Appeal No.97 of 1998 ie the Board did not separately contest the proceeding before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge on considering the materials on record and on construction of the order of appointment of the petitioner as Managing Director of the Board found that the post of Managing Director of the Board was tenure post and therefore petitioner was entitled to hold the post for a period of three years with effect from the date of his appointment and accordingly the learned Single Judge set aside and quashed the impugned notification dated 29.9.97 (Annexure D) and directed the respondents to restore the petitioner as Managing Director of the Board, 4. The State of Assam as well the Board preferred appeals questioning the legality and correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge. According to the appellants the respondent/writ petitioner was appointed at all relevant time continued to be a Govt. servant under the Govt. of Assam and the services was transferred for being appointed as a Managing Director of the Board. According to the appellants the respondent/writ petitioner was appointed at all relevant time continued to be a Govt. servant under the Govt. of Assam and the services was transferred for being appointed as a Managing Director of the Board. On his appointment he did not cease to be a Govt. servant and since he was to attain superannuation on 30.9.97 the service of the petitioner was determined as per law. The writ petitioner as respondent contested both the appeals and supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 5. Mr. PG Baruah, learned Advocate General for the State of Assam, seriously questioned the findings and the conclusion of the learned Single Judge. The learned Advocate General, Mr. Baruah, assailed the legitimacy of the very appointment of the writ petitioner as the Managing Director (MD) of the Board as being contrary to the scheme of Article 166 of the Constitution of India read with the Assam Rules of Executive Business, In support of his contentions, the learned Advocate General referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab & another, reported in AIR 1963 SC 395 ; Kedar Nath Bahl vs. State of Punjab & others, reported in (1978) 4 SCC 336 ; State of Kerela vs. Smti A. Lakshmikutty & others, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 632 , and in the case of Gulabrao Keshavrao Patil & others vs. State of Gujarat & others, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 26 . All decisions of the Minister are not final and conclusive unless requirements in terms of clauses (1) and (2) of Article 166 of the Constitution are complied with, contended Mr. Baruah, the learned Advocate General. 6. Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ Board in Writ Appeal No.97 of 1998, submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge maintaining that the petitioner while holding the post of Managing Director, was occupying a tenure post is contrary to the statutory scheme. Mr. Gogoi, the learned counsel, submitted that a Govt. servant cannot be allowed to hold a post on superannuation in the absence of a valid order of the competent authority extending his services after the age of superannuation with the sanction of the State Govt. on public grounds which must be recorded in writing. Mr. Mr. Gogoi, the learned counsel, submitted that a Govt. servant cannot be allowed to hold a post on superannuation in the absence of a valid order of the competent authority extending his services after the age of superannuation with the sanction of the State Govt. on public grounds which must be recorded in writing. Mr. Gogoi in support of his contention, brought our attention to the scheme of the Act as well as the provisions of the Fundamental Rules governing the service conditions of a Govt. servant. 7. Mr. KH Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 in Civil Rule No.4932 of 1997, submitted that the writ petitioner all along continued to be a Govt. officer who was holding Govt. office and, therefore, his service conditions at all relevant times was to be regulated by the Service Rules. Mr. Choudhury, therefore, submitted that in the absence of any extension of his service, the writ petitioner who was holding a tenure post under the Govt. attained superannuation and, therefore the Govt. passed the impugned order which was within its competence. Mr. Choudhury, in course of his argument, brought our attention to the Govt. notification bearing No.79/Pt/60 dated 13th June, 1985 and instructions/notification bearing No. AAP. 102/86/1 issued by the Govt. of Assam Department of Personnel (A), Assam dated 13th May, 1986 as well as the notification No. 69/79/Pt/l dated 19th June, 1986 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Public Enterprises Department. Assam containing the Hand Book of Instructions and Guidelines issued by the Govt. of Assam for the State level Public Enterprises, Assam and accordingly, questioned the legality of the very appointment of the petitioner as the MD of the Board. Mr. KH Choudhury, the learned Advocate, seriously questioned the finding of the learned Single Judge holding that the petitioner was holding a tenure post. 8. Mr. PK Goswami, learned senior counsel supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge and pointed out that the petitioner was holding a tenure post and, therefore, there could not have been any question of superannuation so far as the writ petitioner was concerned under the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. 8. Mr. PK Goswami, learned senior counsel supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge and pointed out that the petitioner was holding a tenure post and, therefore, there could not have been any question of superannuation so far as the writ petitioner was concerned under the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Goswami after referring to the order of appointment as well as the scheme of the Act, contended that the petitioner was holding a statutory post under the Act and his services could not have been determined except under section 7 of the Act. He submitted that the writ petitioner at all relevant times was holding a tenure post and, therefore, he was entitled to complete the full term of his office. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel Mr. Goswami, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. LP Agarwal vs. Union of India & others reported in (1992) 3 SCC 526 . Mr. Goswami, accordingly contended that the concept of retirement was not applicable in the case of the service of the petitioner as MD of the Board. Mr. Goswami disputed the contention of the learned Advocate General, Assam regarding the validity of the appointment of the writ petitioner. The learned senior counsel submitted that the respondent/State cannot under any circumstance question its own order of appointment and in support of his contention, he referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam-vs. R. Rajagopalachari, reported in 1970 ALR 57. 9. Before going to the merits of the case, it would be pertinent to look to the provisions of the Act and other connected statutory provisions. Under section 3 of the Act, the State Govt. is clothed with the power to constitute a Board by notification of the Official Gazette for carrying out the provisions of the Act subject to restriction, condition and limitation contained therein. The Board consists of Chairman, Vice Chairman, Directors and other Chairman and Vice Chairman. The Minister In-charge of the Department is the Chairman. The appointment of the Vice Chairman, the Managing Director and other Directors are made by the Govt. and notified in the Official Gazette. The Managing Director is the Chief Executive of the Board and a whole time officer who is to be appointed by the State Govt.. The Minister In-charge of the Department is the Chairman. The appointment of the Vice Chairman, the Managing Director and other Directors are made by the Govt. and notified in the Official Gazette. The Managing Director is the Chief Executive of the Board and a whole time officer who is to be appointed by the State Govt.. The terms and conditions of service of the Director is laid down in section 5 of the Act which reads as follows : "5. (1) All Directors including the Vice-Chairman and the Managing Director shall hold office during the pleasure of the Government. (2) The Managing Director of the Board shall hold office for three years unless his term is determined earlier by the State Govt. by notification in the Official Gazette, and shall be eligible for re-appointment. (3) The person appointed as Director under clauses (i), (j), (k), (1), (m), (n) of sub-section (2) of section 4 shall, unless his term is determined earlier by the State Govt., hold office for a period of 3 years or until the expiry of his term of office as elected head of the local body concerned, whichever is earlier, but shall be eligible for re-appointment. (4) Any Director may by writing, addressed to the Govt. resign his office and such resignation takes effect when accepted by Govt.. (5) The condition of the service of the Directors shall be such as may be prescribed. (6) Any vacancy in the office of the Directors may be filled by the Govt. by appointing a person possessing the appropriate qualification specified in section 4." 10. Section 7 contains the provision of removal of the service of the Vice Chairman and other non official Directors. Chapter VII of the Act relates to transfer of assets and liabilities of the Public Health Engineering Organisation and the Urban Local Bodies to the Board as well as transfer of employees, either employed in the Public Health Engineering Organisation of the Govt. of Assam or under a local body exclusively in connection with Urban Water Supply or Sewerage Services or sewage works or sewage firms, etc. Section 22 which deals with the transfer of employees which reads as follows : "22. (1) Save as otherwise provided in section 8, persons who were either employed in the Public Health Engineering Oraganisation of Govt. of Assam or under a local body exclusively in connection with Urban Water Supply or Sewerage Services or sewage works or sewage firms, etc. Section 22 which deals with the transfer of employees which reads as follows : "22. (1) Save as otherwise provided in section 8, persons who were either employed in the Public Health Engineering Oraganisation of Govt. of Assam or under a local body exclusive in connection with Urban Water Supply or Sewerage Services or sewage works or sewage firms, shall from the appointed day (hereinafter in this section referred to as the said date), be transferred to the Board and they shall hold their offices or services therein by the same terms at the same remuneration, and upon the same other terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension, gratuity and other matters as they would have held the same on the said day if this Act had not come into force or, as the case may be the aforesaid water supply and sewerage service, sewage works and sewage firms had not been transferred to and vested in the Board and shall continue to do so until their employment in the Board, is terminated or until their remuneration or other terms and conditions of services are revised and altered by the Board under or in pursuance of any by law or under any rule made in this behalf under sections 115, 116 of this Act: Provided that a permanent employee of the State Govt., whose services have been transferred to the Board, shall hold lien under the State Govt. and the period spent in the services of the Board shall be recknoned for increment, pension, and other terms and conditions of the State Govt. rules in the event of his returning back to the State Govt. service. (2) Every officer or employee of the State Govt. whose services have been transferred to the Board, shall intimate the State Govt. in writing within two years from the date of transfer of his service to the Board. (i) that he may be permitted to retire from service and thereupon he shall be permitted to retire from Govt. service. (2) Every officer or employee of the State Govt. whose services have been transferred to the Board, shall intimate the State Govt. in writing within two years from the date of transfer of his service to the Board. (i) that he may be permitted to retire from service and thereupon he shall be permitted to retire from Govt. service and he will be entitled to compensation pension gratuity and any other benefits permissible to him to the maximum possible limit under the rules, or (ii) that he should be absorbed substantively in the service of the Board and then the Board will absorb him substantively in service and thereupon the service rendered by him under the State Govt. shall be treated as services rendered under the Board and he shall be entitled to have such rights or to such similar rights in the changed situation with regard to remuneration, leave and pension as will not be less favourable to the service conditions, agreement and rights as he would have entitled to before he was employed in the Board, or, (iii) that he may be permitted to revert to the Govt. service and he will be allowed to do so on the same terms and conditions as were applicable just before his services were transferred to the Board and he will be deemed to have remained always in the Govt. service under the same terms conditions. (3) If any officer or employee do not give such intimation within the above specified period it will be deemed that the opted for being absorbed substantively in the service of the Board under the terms and conditions specified by it." 11. As indicated earlier on his services having paced at the disposal of the Municipal Administration Department vide Govt. notification No. AAA 3/96/102 dated 16.7.97 the petitioner was "appointed under the provisions of section 5 of Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1985 as Managing Director, Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Guwahati from the date of his taking over charge." From the order of appointment it thus appears that the petitioner was appointed as per terms of the provision of section 5 of the Act. Section 5 (2) of the Act deals with the term of the office of the Managing Director upto three years if not the same is determined earlier by the State Govt.. 12. Section 5 (2) of the Act deals with the term of the office of the Managing Director upto three years if not the same is determined earlier by the State Govt.. 12. The expression Managing Director of the Board shall hold office for three years is followed by an expression unless his term is determined earlier by the State Govt.. The expression "unless means if not, supposing not, or except that", (Words and Phrases Permanent Edition Volume 43A p. 1). Section 5 (2) thus the expression determined in section 5 is used to denote 'to terminate' therefore to put or set an end to; to bring to a clause (Words and Phrases Permanent Edition 12). In our view does not confer an indefeasible right upon a person appointed as Managing Director to continue in office for three years. The section merely fixes outer limit of the duration of term of appointment. The section at the same time retain the power of the Govt. to determine the period earlier. The section only incorporate the well settled principles of law that a power to appoint carried with it a power to determine the employment which is also embodied in section 18 of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915. The office one holds under section 5 cannot be said to be tenure as is normally understood. The tenure and term cannot be said to be synonymous, though they are frequently so used to be section 5 only defined the term of office. The case in hand cannot be equated to the decision to the case of Dr. LP Agarwal vs. Union of India which was decided by the Supreme Court reported in (1992) 3 SCC 526 . In Dr. Agarwal's case the appointment order clearly stated that he was appointed as Director of All India Institute of Medical Science "for a period of five years, or till he attains the age of 62 years whichever is earlier". He was confirmed in the post by an order in writing. The post of Director under the Rules was a tenure post for five years exclusively one year probation. Dr. He was confirmed in the post by an order in writing. The post of Director under the Rules was a tenure post for five years exclusively one year probation. Dr. Agarwal was for five years but it could be curtailed in the event of his attaining 62 years of age before completing the tenure instead by an order he pre-maturally retired from service in the public interest with immediate effect by giving him three months pay and allowances in lieu of notice. 13. The petitioner substantively at all relevant time was holding a permanent post under the Govt. of Assam. Since the petitioner was holding a tenure post under the Govt. he acquired lien and entitled for right to hold post which is in service terminology known as 'lien'. Lien is expounded in FR 9 (13) as title of Govt. servant to hold substantively either immediately (or on the termination of a period or periods of absence) a permanent post, including a tenure post, to which he has been appointed substantively. Lien is an entitlement or right to hold a permanent post unless the same is suspended, transferred or terminated in accordance with rules. Lien goes with permanent service and flows out to the title to the permanent post. One cannot ask a lien to a post to which another person holds lien. A lien is not suspended as a matter of course on appointment of a person in substantive capacity even to a permanent post outside the cadre. The order of competent authority as such is essential. Under FR 13 unless his lien is suspended under FR 14 or transferred under FR 14B, a Govt. servant holding substantively a permanent post retains a lien on that post while performing the duties of that post; while on foreign service, or holding a temporary post, or officiating in another post. FR 14 indicates the methodology of suspension of lien under clause (b) of FR 14 provides that notwithstanding anything containing in clause (a) or (b) of FR 14 a Govt. servant's lien on a tenure post may in no circumstances be suspended. If he is appointed substantively to another permanent post, his lien on the tenure post must be terminated. FR 15 confers certain protection to a civil servant even against transfer. The writ petitioner at all relevant time continued to be a Govt. servant's lien on a tenure post may in no circumstances be suspended. If he is appointed substantively to another permanent post, his lien on the tenure post must be terminated. FR 15 confers certain protection to a civil servant even against transfer. The writ petitioner at all relevant time continued to be a Govt. servant and while he was discharging duties of a Managing Director of the Boards and therefore as a Govt. servant he was subject to the provision of FR 56 and to attain superannuation when he attains the age of 58 years. The tenure of a Govt. servant comes to an end on attaining his age of superannuation. The petitioner cannot escaped from the service law concept of retirement. The concept of superannuation therefore cannot said to be a lien for the purpose of determination of service of a Managing Director of the Board. 14. We do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Advocate General, Assam, Mr. PG Baruah. In our considered opinion there is no infirmity in the initial appointment of the writ petitioner as Managing Director as contended by Mr. Baruah, the learned Advocate General. At any rate we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Advocate General, Assam regarding the validity of the appointment of the petitioner as Managing Director for the alleged contravention of the provision of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The order of appointment of the Managing Director was never in question prior to institution of the writ petition. In such situation the respondents cannot allowed to question its own order (Ref State of Assam vs. R. Rajagopalachari, 1970 ALR 57) 15. The contention of the learned senior counsel Mr. PK Goswami that the petitioner ought to have made aware of about the impropriety and or wrong doing allegedly committed by the petitioner as referred to in the impugned order has some substance. Under our constitutional set up no person should be condemned unheard, there must be a fair play in action. Natural justice is a great humanising principle but at the same time taking all aspects into consideration the order of termination of service of the petitioner cannot be declared to be void since the petitioner already attained superannuation. Under our constitutional set up no person should be condemned unheard, there must be a fair play in action. Natural justice is a great humanising principle but at the same time taking all aspects into consideration the order of termination of service of the petitioner cannot be declared to be void since the petitioner already attained superannuation. To our mind, ends of justice will substantially meet if the observations adversely affecting or reflecting the writ petitioner-respondents are ordered to be expunged, which is accordingly stands expunged. 16. For the reasons indicated earlier, the impugned judgment and order dated 27.4.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No.4873 of 1997 and Civil Rule No.4932 of 1997 cannot be upheld and accordingly the-same is set aside. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the writ petitions stands dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.