Supreme Court: State Must Be Impleaded When Relief is Sought From Public Exchequer  ||  SC: Student Fees Cannot Be Increased Mid-Course Except in Exceptional Circumstances  ||  Supreme Court: ED's Delay in Sending Arrest Order Does Not By Itself Invalidate Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Appeal Limitation Runs From NCLAT Order Pronouncement, Not Certified Copy Receipt  ||  Gujarat High Court: Waqf Tribunal Has No Supervisory Authority Over Waqf Board  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Aadhaar Fingerprint Comparison to Trace Sreekrishnapuram Murder Culprits  ||  Delhi High Court: Unnatural Death at Police Station Alone Cannot Establish Police Negligence  ||  Orissa High Court: Teacher Scolding Student for Intoxicant Use is Not Suicide Abetment  ||  Supreme Court: Drug Users are Victims and Focus Must Be on Breaking the Supply Chain  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Signatories May Join Arbitration When the Dispute Affects Their Rights    

Ramhari Dagadu Shinde And Ors vs. The State Of Maharashtra - (High Court of Bombay) (20 Jun 2023)

Nomination of employee to a post in pure discretion and subjective satisfaction of the previous Government does not vests any right to continue on posts

MANU/MH/2179/2023

Civil

In present case, the Petitioners assail order cancelling their appointment as Members/Chairman of the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively("Commission").

It is common ground 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.

The submission of the Petitioners that, the tenure of three years has not expired cannot be sustained. There is nothing in the GO appointing them on their posts to indicate that, the tenure of three years was a 'minimum tenure'. 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. 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 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 implementation of policies and programmes per se cannot be charged as arbitrary or mala fide.

The order cancelling 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 cancelling their appointment cannot be held arbitrary or discriminatory.

Tags : POST   APPOINTMENT   CANCELLATION  

Share :        
It is common ground that, the Commission is neither statutory nor mandated by any provis... For read more news from newsroom.manupatra.com"data-action="share/whatsapp/share" class="ic_wtsp-grid">

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved