Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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