In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court has upheld the decision of the Eknath Shinde-led government to cancel the appointments of the chairman and members of the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale dismissed the petition filed by Ramhari Dagadu Shinde, Jagannath Motiram Abhyankar, and Kishor Medhe challenging the cancellation order.
The petitioners argued that changes in administration following a change in government are often made to accommodate supporters of the ruling party, which they deemed a violation of natural justice. However, the court ruled that a change in social policy and the implementation of new policies and programs after a change in government is a normal part of the democratic process and cannot be considered arbitrary or discriminatory.
The court also noted that the appointments to the commission were made at the sole discretion of the government, without following any selection procedure or inviting applications from the general public. The commission itself is neither statutory nor mandated by the Constitution, further weakening the petitioners' claim to a fundamental right to continue in their positions.
"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," the court stated.
The plea was filed by advocate Satish Talekar on behalf of the petitioners, who claimed that their appointments were revoked after the Eknath Shinde government assumed power in June 2022. They also highlighted the cancellation of appointments for 197 presidents and non-official members serving on 29 project-level committees.
While the petitioners alleged that these changes were made to accommodate supporters and workers of the ruling government, the court held that the cancellation of their appointments was within the government's executive powers and not illegal. The court emphasized that such appointments were based on the pleasure of the government and did not possess the characteristics of employment.
The ruling clarifies that the government has the authority to make changes in social policy and implement new programs and policies in line with its mandate. It affirms the discretionary power of the government in making appointments to non-statutory bodies and reinforces the principle that appointment to such positions is subject to the pleasure of the government.
Picture Source :
