Uttarakhand High Court
Kiranpal Balmiki vs Union Of India And Others on 11 July, 2017
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 709 of 2017
Kiranpal Balmiki .........Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & others ........Respondents
With
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 708 of 2017
A.K. Sikandar Pawar .........Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & others ........Respondents
With
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 710 of 2017
Shri Santosh Gaurav .........Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & others ........Respondents
Present:- Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aamir Malik, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
In the above writ petitions, petitioners were either appointed as Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson of the Uttarakhand State Safai Karamchari Commission on 22.04.2015. Now vide impugned orders dated 29.03.2017, they have been removed from the post of Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson, as the case might be. The impugned orders clearly say that the appointment of the petitioners has been cancelled and they are being removed from their posts.
2. The contention of the petitioners is that there has been clear violation of the terms and conditions of the Government Order dated 27.01.2009, by which the Commission was constituted and the 2 Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson and the members were to be appointed, etc.
3. Learned State Counsel submits that the terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioners though suggest that the appointment will be for a period of three years, as has been prescribed, but it has also been provided that the term can also be curtailed.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners point out that in similar circumstances when the earlier Government had removed the appointed Chairman and Vice-Chairman, this Court had interfered in the matter vide its judgment and order dated 06.10.2012 and the impugned orders were quashed.
5. Order dated 06.10.2012 passed in WPMS No. 777 of 2012, Bhagwati Prasad Makwana Vs. Union of India & others and another connected matter has been perused.
6. In the above case, the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman who were appointed were removed in the like manner as the present petitioners. In the case cited by the petitioners, this Court had observed as under:-
"This Court is clearly of the view that the State Government has no powers to do what it has presently done midstream, particularly in the manner in which it has been done. It has powers to remove the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman as provided under the provision of 3 (2) of the Government Order dated 27.01.2009, but it has chosen not to do so. What has instead been done is that the State has removed the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, vide its impugned orders, which is wholly illegal. In fact the State Government has done indirectly what it cannot do directly. It is definitely an abuse of its powers.
Moreover, it is not a case of the respondents that by the said impugned order dated 16.4.2012 a group of people or a large number of people have been affected. This affects only the two persons, the petitioners as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Commission. If this order is not quashed presently, this will only encourage the State to pass such order in future and justify their arbitrariness which is presently a clear case of naked discrimination.3
While quashing the two orders dated 16.4.2012, this Court also takes strength from two seminal decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The first is Dinnapati Sadasiva Reddi, Vice- Chancellor, Osmania University v. Chancellor, Osmania University and others reported in AIR 1967 SC 1305 whereby the particular amendment as Section 13-A in Osmania University (Second Amendment) Act, 1966 which curtailed the tenure of the incumbent Vice-Chancellor of Osmania University was held to be violative of the Constitution of India on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it created an unjust classification and there was no reasonable differentia of making such classification nor was there any nexus between such classification and the object sought to be achieved. In the present case though the facts are somewhat different but basically the present petitioners have been victims of arbitrariness on the hands of the respondents who have without assigning any reasons curtailed the period of their tenure from three years to one and a half years. The second case is a more recent one, which is the case of P. Venugopal v. Union of India reported in (2008) 5 SCC 1 where the curtailment of the tenure of the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi by the Parliament was again held to be a case of naked discrimination. The ratio of both these cases also strengthens the case of the petitioners and their challenge is also against the arbitrariness contained in the order dated 16.4.2012.
In view of the above the orders dated 16.04.2012 in both the writ petitions are hereby quashed."
7. The present case of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is squarely covered by the ratio given in the above decision. Consequently, writ petitions stands disposed in terms of the order passed by this Court in WPMS No. 777 of 2012, Bhagwati Prasad Makwana Vs. Union of India & others, and another connected matter, decided on 06.10.2012. The impugned orders dated 29.03.2017 are hereby quashed and set aside.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 11.07.2017 Ankit/