Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

High Court Holds Appointment Cancellation of Maharashtra State Commission Members Not Illegal or Discriminatory

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court upheld the cancellation of appointments of Ramhari Dagadu Shinde, Jagannath Motiram Abhyankar, and Kishor Ramdas Medhe as Members/Chairman of the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The court ruled that the appointments were made at the pleasure of the government and had no statutory or constitutional recognition. The decision highlights the discretionary power of the government to revoke such appointments and dismisses the petitioners' claims of arbitrariness and discrimination.

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has upheld the cancellation of appointments of Ramhari Dagadu Shinde, Jagannath Motiram Abhyankar, and Kishor Ramdas Medhe as Members/Chairman of the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The court's judgment emphasized that these appointments were made at the pleasure of the government and held no statutory or constitutional recognition.

The petitioners had challenged the order dated December 2, 2022, which revoked their appointments to the Commission. They argued that the cancellation was arbitrary and motivated by political considerations, aimed at accommodating supporters and workers of the ruling dispensation. The petitioners contended that their appointments had a tenure of three years, which had not expired, and that the cancellation violated principles of natural justice.

However, the court rejected these arguments, noting that the Commission itself was a non-statutory body and its existence was solely at the discretion of the government. The appointments were made by an executive order, without any competitive process or selection procedure. Therefore, the court held that the petitioners had no fundamental or legal right to the posts and the government had the prerogative to cancel their appointments.

Justice Neela Gokhale, delivering the judgment on behalf of the bench, stated, "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. For this reason, the Petitioners have no fundamental or legal right to the posts."

The court further noted that the petitioners had filed multiple petitions seeking similar reliefs on the same grounds, which amounted to an abuse of the legal process. The court expressed its disapproval of such practices, emphasizing the importance of judicial resources and efficiency.

With this ruling, the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed the discretionary power of the government in revoking appointments to non-statutory bodies. The judgment highlights that such appointments serve at the pleasure of the government, and there is no requirement for the government to provide justification or opportunity for a hearing in cases of revocation.

DATE: Reserved on 12th June 2023,

Ramhari Dagadu Shinde VS The State of Maharashtra

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Ramhari-Vs-State-Bomb.-HC-20-June-23.pdf"]

Latest Legal News