Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale recently while dismissing a plea challenging cancellation of the appointment of the Chairman and members of the Maharashtra State Commission on Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes observed that the change in policy followed by change in government is part of the democratic process. 

"A change in social policy followed by a change in government is part of the democratic process and a change in implementation of policies and programmes per se cannot be charged as arbitrary or mala fide," the high court observed.

The petitioners were aggrieved by the cancellation of the appointment order of December 2022 by the current Eknath Shinde Government. 

The petitioners had challenged the cancellation of various appointments of non-official Members and other Members of the Statutory Boards, Committees, Commissions, etc. They contended that such changes were made only to accommodate supporters and workers of the ruling dispensation.

It was argued that upon taking over the reins of the government, the Chief Minister and the new administration canceled appointments of as many as 197 Presidents and non-official members appointed on 29 Project Level (Planning Review) Committees in the Tribal Sub-plan Projects. 

The petitioners submitted 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. Similarly, the appointment of the petitioners to the posts of Chairman/Members of the Commission was canceled.

Advocate Satish Talekar appearing for the petitioner argued on following four grounds:

1. The appointment was for a tenure of three years which had not expired. 

2. The order canceling their appointments did not disclose any reason for such cancellation.

3. There was nothing against the petitioners; their conduct/performance did not warrant such cancellation

4. The doctrine of pleasure cannot be a license to act arbitrarily or whimsically or with unfettered discretion.

Advocate General Birendra Saraf appearing for the State argued that petitioners were not holding civil posts and members of the the commission serve at the pleasure of the government. He also pointed out that it was not a statutory commission and the whole commission may be disbanded at any time.

He also pointed out that there was another plea seeking similar and additional relief already pending before another bench of the high court wherein the petitioners had also challenged their removal from the posts of Chairman/Members of the Commission.

The court agreed with the contentions of the Advocate General and said, 

"Dr Saraf has brought to our attention that the petitioners have challenged the cancellation of their appointment in that petition as well. This statement has not been rebutted by the petitioners. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and deserves to be decried. It is unacceptable for the petitioners to file multiple petitions seeking similar reliefs on the same grounds".

The division bench recorded that a government order canceling the appointment of petitioners cannot be held to be arbitrary or discriminatory.

"Thus, considering the facts in the present case and in view of the legal position that the Commission has no statutory nor constitutional recognition, we have no hesitation in holding 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. No fundamental right to continue on the said posts is vested in the Petitioners. The GO dated 2nd December 2022 canceling their appointment cannot be held arbitrary or discriminatory," the court recorded.

Case Title: Ramhari Dagdu Shinde & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.