The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the order dated 2nd December 2022 canceling the appointment of the petitioners as Members/Chairman of the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively.
The Court observed that the nomination of the Petitioners to the posts in question was by an executive order of the Government; it can be canceled, too, by an executive order of the Government, and hence, the Petitioners have no fundamental or legal right to the posts.
Brief Facts:
The Maharashtra State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission was established by the Social Justice, Cultural Affairs, and Special Assistance Department. Annexure A provides the tenure of the Commission to be three years. Petitioners No. 1 and 3 were appointed Members of the Commission and the 2nd Petitioner was appointed the Chairman of the Commission. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the cancellation of various appointments of non-official Members and other Members of the Statutory Boards, Committees, Commissions, etc.
Their charge is that such changes were made only with a view to accommodate supporters and workers of the ruling dispensation. The Petition is replete with instances of a series of decisions taken by the Chief Minister/Deputy Chief Minister in discontinuing, canceling, and modifying decisions of the earlier government, which the Petitioners complain to be against the public interest. One such decision is the cancellation of the appointment of the Petitioners as Members/Chairman of the Commission. The Petitioners complain that such an abrupt decision of cancellation of appointments was taken without affording an opportunity of hearing or assigning any reasons and is, therefore, in breach of the principles of natural justice.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there was no reason to cancel or stay decisions of the earlier government particularly when the Government of Maharashtra had not received any complaints. He challenged the cancellation of appointments of the Petitioners on various grounds. Firstly, their appointment was for a tenure of three years which has not expired. Secondly, the assailed order canceling their appointments does not disclose any reason for such cancellation. Thirdly, there was nothing against the Petitioners.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that these are not civil posts. The Members of the Commission serve at the pleasure of the government. He points out that the Commission is not a statutory commission. The whole commission may be disbanded at any time. The appointment (and removal) of members is at the pleasure of the government and there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the Commission is neither statutory nor mandated by any provision of the Constitution. Neither the constitution of the Commission nor the appointment of the Petitioners has any statutory basis. The Petitioners were nominated at the sole discretion of the government without following any selection procedure or inviting applications from the general public. Such an appointment has to be treated as one under the pleasure of the government and not in the nature of any employment or appointment under Part XIV of the Constitution.
Further, the Court observed that the nomination of the Petitioners to their posts without following any competitive process and in pure discretion and subjective satisfaction of the earlier government does not create nor vests any right or entitlement in the Petitioners to continue on their posts. The nomination of the Petitioners to the posts in question was by an executive order of the Government; it can be cancelled, too, by an executive order of the Government. For this reason, the Petitioners have no fundamental or legal right to the posts. Consequently, there is no requirement of any justification or of giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners for their removal. A change in social policy followed by a change in government is part of the democratic process and a change in the implementation of policies and programs per se cannot be charged as arbitrary or mala fide.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the order canceling the appointments of the Petitioners to the posts of Chairman/Members of the Commission respectively cannot be said to be illegal, unlawful, or otherwise vulnerable.
Case Title: Ramhari Dagadu Shinde & Ors. vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice G.S.Patel, and Hon’ble Justice Neela Gokhale
Case no.: WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 1517 OF 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Satish Talekar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Birendra Saraf
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
