MUMBAI: The Bombay high court held that an order by the chief minister Eknath Shinde government of cancelling the appointments of persons to the posts of Chairman and Members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Commission cannot be said to be illegal. The HC dismissed a petition filed by a trio who alleged that the new regime had arbitrarily and unlawfully changed appointments made by the former CM Uddhav Thackeray-led regime.
“No fundamental right to continue on the posts is vested in the petitioners,’’ said the HC bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale holding that “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…to continue on their posts.”
“The order dated 2nd December 2022 cancelling their appointment cannot be held as arbitrary or discriminatory,” said the HC judgment authored by Justice Gokhale. Ramdhari Shinde, 68, Jagannath Abhyankar, 74 and Kishor Medhe, 62 all pensioners from Mumbai and Thane had filed the petition this year assailing the December order affecting them. Abhyankar had been appointed chairperson in October 2021 of the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, while the other two as members.
Shinde was sworn in as CM on June 30, 2022. The commission was set up in March 2005 by the Social Justice Department.
S B Talekar, their counsel argued that they were “perturbed by changes in administration in the State, reversal of various policies of the government, which invariably follow a change in the government’’ and hence aggrieved by “abrupt’’ cancellation, sans any hearing, of 197 Presidents and nonofficial members appointed on 29 Project Level (Planning Review) Committees in the Tribal Sub-plan Projects, and various appointments of Members of the Statutory Boards, Committees, Commissions etc.
Maharashtra Advocate General Birendra Saraf defending the State’s decision said it was not illegal as the appointments were not for civil posts and “member serve at the pleasure of the government.”
The trio alleged that such changes were made only to accommodate supporters and workers of the ruling dispensation and cited several instances of series of decisions taken by the CM and Dy CM in discontinuing decisions of the earlier government, which they complained was “against public interest.’’ Saraf said the Commission was not a statutory commission (set up under an Act). The HC held that since the members and chairperson were nominated at the sole discretion of the government without following any selection procedure or inviting applications from the general public, it is not a statutory appointment.
“In fact, the existence of the Commission itself is at the pleasure of the Government. The very inception of the Commission is by an executive order and can thus also be dismantled by an executive order. The nomination of the Petitioners to the posts in question was also by an executive order of the Government; it, too, can be cancelled by an executive order of the Government,’’ held the HC adding that the “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.’’
Talekar argued that their year tenure had not expired. The HC said such contention cannot be sustained as there was nothing in the appointment order to indicate it had to be ‘minimum’ tenure of three years. When the AG pointed another existing petition by the petitioners, the HC said such “practice has to be decried.’’ “It is unacceptable for the Petitioners to file multiple Petitions seeking similar reliefs on the same grounds,’’ said the judgment.
“No fundamental right to continue on the posts is vested in the petitioners,’’ said the HC bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale holding that “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…to continue on their posts.”
“The order dated 2nd December 2022 cancelling their appointment cannot be held as arbitrary or discriminatory,” said the HC judgment authored by Justice Gokhale. Ramdhari Shinde, 68, Jagannath Abhyankar, 74 and Kishor Medhe, 62 all pensioners from Mumbai and Thane had filed the petition this year assailing the December order affecting them. Abhyankar had been appointed chairperson in October 2021 of the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, while the other two as members.
Shinde was sworn in as CM on June 30, 2022. The commission was set up in March 2005 by the Social Justice Department.
S B Talekar, their counsel argued that they were “perturbed by changes in administration in the State, reversal of various policies of the government, which invariably follow a change in the government’’ and hence aggrieved by “abrupt’’ cancellation, sans any hearing, of 197 Presidents and nonofficial members appointed on 29 Project Level (Planning Review) Committees in the Tribal Sub-plan Projects, and various appointments of Members of the Statutory Boards, Committees, Commissions etc.
Maharashtra Advocate General Birendra Saraf defending the State’s decision said it was not illegal as the appointments were not for civil posts and “member serve at the pleasure of the government.”
The trio alleged that such changes were made only to accommodate supporters and workers of the ruling dispensation and cited several instances of series of decisions taken by the CM and Dy CM in discontinuing decisions of the earlier government, which they complained was “against public interest.’’ Saraf said the Commission was not a statutory commission (set up under an Act). The HC held that since the members and chairperson were nominated at the sole discretion of the government without following any selection procedure or inviting applications from the general public, it is not a statutory appointment.
“In fact, the existence of the Commission itself is at the pleasure of the Government. The very inception of the Commission is by an executive order and can thus also be dismantled by an executive order. The nomination of the Petitioners to the posts in question was also by an executive order of the Government; it, too, can be cancelled by an executive order of the Government,’’ held the HC adding that the “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.’’
Talekar argued that their year tenure had not expired. The HC said such contention cannot be sustained as there was nothing in the appointment order to indicate it had to be ‘minimum’ tenure of three years. When the AG pointed another existing petition by the petitioners, the HC said such “practice has to be decried.’’ “It is unacceptable for the Petitioners to file multiple Petitions seeking similar reliefs on the same grounds,’’ said the judgment.
