Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High 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