Where Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt, Benefit Must Go To The Accused: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction Lok Adalat Award Cannot Override Registered Lease Deed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Execution Petition for Eviction Deemed Conveyance Does Not Enlarge Title — Civil Court Must Adjudicate Ownership Disputes: Bombay High Court Common Intention Must Be Proved—No One Can Be Convicted Solely for Being Named Among a Group: Calcutta High Court Mere Abusive Language or Threat, Without Sexual Colour, Does Not Attract Section 354A IPC: Delhi High Court Forcing a Child to Carry the Trauma Is an Assault on Dignity: Gujarat High Court Allows Termination of 15-Week Pregnancy of 14-Year-Old Rape Survivor Framing of Charge is Not a Final Order, No Appeal Lies Under Section 14A of SC/ST Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Interest Earned from Axis Bank Is ‘Attributable’ to Credit Business – Not a Separate Source of Income: ITAT Chennai Grants 80P Deduction Must Be Proved, Not May Be Proved: Karnataka High Court Upholds Triple Murder Conviction On Complete Chain Of Circumstantial Evidence Statutory Scheme Overrides Hereditary Claims: Kerala High Court Upholds Executive Officer Appointment at Malamakkavu Ayyappa Temple No Mid-Stream Change In Examination Centre Once Exams Are Underway:  Orissa High Court Draws Line On Judicial Interference Forest Allegation Found Baseless, Petitioner Had Personal Grudge: NGT Dismisses Plea Alleging Illegal Mining in Raisen Protected Forest CPC Has No Role in Consumer Forums: National Commission Slams Procedural Missteps in Insurance Complaint Transfer Case Permit Is Not a Formality, It’s a Legal Necessity: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Insurer to ‘Pay and Recover’ for Accident Caused by Vehicle Plying Outside Authorized States A Compromise Before Court Is Not a Private Contract but a Solemn Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail Senior Citizens Misled with FD Promises Can’t Be Bound by Insurance Contracts: Chandigarh State Commission Upholds Full Refund with Interest No Specific Forum Under Trust Act to Adjudicate Election Disputes Involving Fraud: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction Mere Presence is Not Conspiracy: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Ganja Case Where Intermediate Quantity Alone Recovered from Accused Sufficient Cause Is Not a Matter of Sympathy, But Substance: Bombay High Court Rejects 645-Day Delay in Filing Review Petition

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