Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ram Lok & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 12 April, 2023
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 144/2023 Reserved on: 4.4.2023 .
Decided on: 12.04.2023
Ram Lok & ors. .....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & anr. ....Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1Yes For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anubhuti Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. I. N. Mehta, Y. W. Chauhan, Sr. Addl. A.Gs., Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Addl. A.G., Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Dy.A.G. & Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondentsState.
_____________________________________________________________________ Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:
"(i) that the impugned order dated 12.12.2022 and consequential notifications Annexure P4 & P5 may kindly be quashed.1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 2(ii) that all other consequential actions taken on the basis of impugned Annexure P4 & Annexure P5 may also be .
ordered to be quashed as once the foundation goes the superstructure is liable to fall."
2 Briefly, the facts of the instant case are that vide notification dated 20.4.2016, the State of Himachal Pradesh set up the Commission, namely "The Himachal Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Castes" (fort short, the Commission) in compliance to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India.
3 The Commission was to consist of four Members, including the Chairperson. The Chairperson was to be an eminent person belonging to Scheduled Castes having wide experience in social life. Not more than three nonofficial members belonging to the Scheduled Castes were to be appointed by the Government from amongst the persons of ability, integrity and standing having special knowledge in matters relating to scheduled castes. It was stipulated that the Chairman and Members shall hold office for a term not exceeding three years, except the exofficio members. They could also be removed on ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 3 specified grounds. The relevant extract of the notification reads .
as under: The Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to set up the Commission, namely " The Himachal Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Castes" in the State of Himachal Pradesh with its Headquarter at Shimla to safeguard the interest of the Scheduled Castes in the State of Himachal Pradesh and to ensure effective implementation of policies, programmes and legislations intended for socialeconomic development of Scheduled Castes, to recommend remedial measures for their welfare and development. The constitution of the Commission, its term of office and powers and functions shall be as under, namely:
1. Constitution of the Commission. The State Government shall, by notification, constitute the Himachal Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Castes with effect from such date as may be specified therein.
2. Composition of the Commission. (1) The Commission shall consist of the following Members, namely:
(a) Chairperson, to be nominated by the State Government;
(b) three NonOfficial Members, to be nominated by the State Government, out of which one shall be a woman and other shall be from the legal profession; and
(c) the Director, Scheduled Castes, Other Backward Classes and Minority Affairs, Himachal Pradesh shall be the MemberSecretary.
3. Term of office and conditions of service of the Chairperson and the Members. (1) The term of office of the ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 4 Non Official Members including Chairperson shall be three years:
.
Provided that no Chairperson or a Non Official Member shall hold office for more than two terms:
Provided further that no Chairperson or NonOfficial Member shall hold office after attaining the age of sixty five years. If the Chairperson attains the age of sixty five years before expiry of the term of three years, he shall vacate the office on the date he attains such age.
(2) Any of the Members including Chairperson of the Commission may, at any time, by writing to the State Government, resign from his office.
(3)The State Government may remove Chairperson or Member from the Commission, if he
(a) becomes an undischarged insolvent;
(b) is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which in the opinion of the Government involves moral turpitude;
(c) becomes of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court,
(d) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting:
(e) has in the opinion of the Government, so abused the position as Chairperson or Member so as to render that person's continuance in office detrimental to the public interest or of the Scheduled Castes;::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 5
Provided that no Member shall be removed under this Sub clause until he has been given an opportunity of being .
heard;
(f) without obtaining leave of absence from the Commission, absents himself from three consecutive meetings of the Commission; and the
(g) conducts himself in manner which is prejudicial to public interest or against the established norms.
(4) In the event of casual vacancy occurring by reason of death, resignation or removal of a Member including Chairperson or otherwise, shall be filled by fresh nomination and any person so nominated shall hold office for the remainder of the term in whose place he is so nominated.
4. Qualifications for nomination as Chairperson and Non Official Members. (1) The Chairperson and NonOfficial Members shall be nominated from, amongst persons of ability, integrity and standing in society and who have served for the welfare and upliftment of the Scheduled Castes, having educational qualifications not below that of a graduate.
(2) Subject to the provisions of clause (1),
(a) the Chairperson shall be from the Scheduled Castes categories having eminence in public life or a retired Government servant not below the rank of Principal Secretary to the State Government belonging to the Scheduled Castes categories; and ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 6
(b) NonOfficial Members of the Commission shall be eminent persons of ability, integrity and standing, who .
have served for the welfare and upliftment of Scheduled Castes and having atleast graduation degree in any stream: Provided that the NonOfficial Member from the legal profession must have at least ten years standing as an Advocate or must have at least ten years experience in dealing with legal matters:
Provided further that atleast two NonOfficial Members including Chairperson shall be from Scheduled Castes categories.
5. Conditions of service of Chairperson and NonOfficial Members. The salaries and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson and NonOfficial Members shall be such as may be determined by the State Government for which necessary budgetary provisions shall be made by the State Government.
4 Petitioner No.1 was nominated as Chairman of the Commission on 6.8.2021, whereas petitioners No. 2 to 4 were nominated as members of the Commission on 21.3.2022 vide para (3) of ChapterII of notification No. KalyanCH(10)6/90/III dated 30.9.1993 as amended vide notification of even number dated 27.5.2020. Relevant extract of the notification dated 30.9.1993 reads as under: "Chapter II ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 7 The Himachal Pradesh State Commissioner For Backward Classes.
.
Term of office and conditions of service of Chairperson and members.
4.(1) Every Member shall hold office for a term not exceeding one year at a time from the date he assumed office CHANGED TO ONE YEAR VIDE Ist AMENDMENT DATED 20.9.94.
ii) TERM OF OFFICE EXTENDED TO THREE YEARS VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. KALYANCH (10)1/99L, dated 6.7.2002 PUBLISHED IN RAJPATRA ON 6th SEPTEMBER 2002.
4 (3) The State Government shall remove a person from the office of Member if that person
(a) becomes an undischarged involvement,
(b) is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which, in the opinion of the State Government, involves moral turpitude, (c) becomes of unsound mind and stands ao declared by a competent court;
(d) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting.
(e) is, without obtaining leave of absence, from the Commission, absent from three consecutive meetings of the Commission; or
(f) has, in the opinion of the State Government so abused the position of Chairperson or Member as to render that person's continuance in office detrimental to the interests of backward classes or the public interest;
::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 8Provided that no person shall be removed under this clause until that person has been given an opportunity of being .
heard in the matter."
5 Now, vide notification dated 17.12.2022, which is in suppression of earlier notification dated 6.8.2021, services of the petitioners have been terminated and aggrieved thereby the petitioners have filed the instant petition mainly on the ground that the impugned notification has been issued at the instance of Hon'ble Chief Minister and not the council of ministers and otherwise also services of the petitioners could not have been terminated before the completion of their tenure of 3 years that too without affording an opportunity of hearing as envisaged under notification dated 30.9.1993.
6 The respondents have filed their reply, wherein it is stated that petitioner No.1 was appointed as Chairman of the Commission and petitioners No. 2 to 4 were nominated as members without any selection process as such their appointment was on the pleasure of the then nominating authority and hence, after formation of the new Government, nomination of the petitioners were withdrawn vide impugned notification. Since the petitioners have no right to hold the posts ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 9 in question, especially when their appointment was made by the .
government in exercise of its power of doctrine of pleasure, therefore, it was not necessary that such appointments are continued for entire period and they can conveniently be removed at any time by the Government while exercising its power of doctrine of pleasure.
7We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.
8 Clause 2 of the notification is titled 'Term of Office and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members'. Clause 2(a) reads as under:
"The Chairperson and the Members shall hold office for a term not exceeding three years, except exofficio member"
9 It is clear that as per this provision except for the ex officio member, the Chairperson and the Members shall hold office for a term not exceeding three years. Clearly, three year term specified is the 'maximum term' upto which such an appointment could be made. Neither a minimum or a fixed term is provided.
::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 1010 Similar questions have been considered by different .
High Courts and it has been held that appointments to high public offices like Chairperson/ Members of Boards/ Commissions which are not made by following any competitive selection process, but in the pure discretion and subjective satisfaction of the government and for which no `minimum tenure' as distinct from a `tenure' is prescribed, are at the pleasure of the government and can be terminated at any time in exercise of the doctrine of pleasure without any cause shown. In such situation the exercise of the doctrine of pleasure is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional nor antithetical to Article 14.
11 In Ghanshyam Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 Delhi 59, the Delhi High Court while considering the validity of the provisions contained in the MultiState Cooperative Societies Act (LI of 1984), has held that nomination of an official or non official by Central/State Government on Board of Directors of MultiState Cooperative Society can be revoked before expiry of full term fixed for elected members and "nomination" cannot be equated with "employment". In the present case, since the nominations of the petitioners were not based upon any Rules or ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 11 regulations prescribing qualifications, age, etc., and since the .
same was based on subjective satisfaction of respondent Nos. 2 and 1, I am inclined to read the doctrine of pleasure into the provisions of statute and byelaws not merely for the purpose of nomination but for the purpose of removal also. In this behalf, the principle underlying Section 16 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 and General Clauses Act, 1807 would squarely apply whereby it can be said that the power to nominate would include the power to remove unless different intention appears in the statute, which is not so in the present case. In view of this, the nomination of the petitioners in the first committee of management being not an employment governed by any Rules and/or regulations, the same cannot be governed by Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
12 In Unjha Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs. State of Gujarat, 1999 (1) GLR 406, the Gujarat High Court had considered the provisions contained in Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 and Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 and held that where on a reconstitution of a market committee Under Section 54 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 12 Markets Act, 1963, some persons are nominated as members of .
the new committee, members of the old committee stand automatically removed. The State Government which appoints members has a right to remove them by virtue of Section 14 and 16 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904. Such persons are not entitled to any hearing as "pleasure doctrine" continues to 13 to apply even under the Republic of India.
In Dattaji Chirandas vs. State of Gujarat, 1999 (3) GLR 2189, the Gujarat High Court had an occasion to consider the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act and held that the pleasure doctrine and applicability thereof in the matter of appointment and removal of persons nominated to high public offices cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or unconstitutional in any manner. If such appointments are made initially by nomination on political considerations, there can be no justification in resisting termination of such appointments on political considerations. Such nominees appointed on political considerations do not have the will or authority of the people of the State unlike those elected by the people of the State.
::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 1314 Similar question arose before a learned single Judge .
of Gujarat High Court in Harisinh Pratapsinjh Chavda vs. Chimanbhai, 1991 (1) GLR 667. In the said case, the challenge to removal of the Chairman of the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Gandhinagar by the Government was the subject matter. This Court, while upholding the action of the Government of removing the Chairman has observed that persons who hold a political office cannot invoke the protection of any of the three Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution. They cannot invoke writ jurisdiction of the High Court. With the change in Government, these offices can be filled up by persons who share the same political philosophy. Political issues are not justifiable issues and 'the appeal should be to the polls and not to the Courts'. It is further observed that if a democratically elected Government felt that for effective implementation of its policies and programmes a change in the personnel was necessary, it could not be accused of mala fides or pursuing any act of vendetta. It is further held that the power to appoint persons to the office of Chairman by Government is not controlled by any guidelines. Persons so appointed can be ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 14 removed by the Government under the proviso to Section 6(1) of .
the Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board Act, 1978.
15 In Amarjeet Kaur vs Union Of India And Ors.
1991(43) DLT 262, the petitioner was appointed as Chairperson of the Central Social Welfare Board (A Government Company) for a period of three years w.e.f. 20.11.1988 through a Government completion r of to resolution. Apprehending termination of her appointment before the three years period, she filed writ petition praying that the respondents be restrained from terminating her appointment before the expiry of three years. It was alleged that the petitioner's services were being sought to be terminated merely because the party in power had changed. On behalf of the Union of India, it had been contended that the three year period, referred to in the Government resolution appointing her was the maximum period and that the respondents had the power to terminate the same before the expiry of three years. The court held that the government had untrammeled discretion in appointment and removal. It is apt to reproduce para 17 of the judgment, which reads as under: ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 15 "(17) The discretion of the Government in appointment as well as removal is untrammelled. It is in public interest .
because it is part of the policy (and its implementation), laid down by the Government. It must be recognised that each political party which forms the government comes into power with promises and assurances in regard to social, political and economic welfare of the people. (For example, a party in power at a given time may have its distinct policy and programme for upliftment of poor or representation and protection to women. The five year plans which are sponsored by the Government would reflect the areas of priority of social welfare.) The programmes and the plans for the implementation of the policy would be administered by the Social Welfare Department of the government themselves and through the agencies like the Social Welfare Board. The change in the social policy and programme with the democratic change of the rulers are, thus, part of our social life. The policies and programmes and priorities shift with the change in the Government and such a change must be presumed to be in public interest so long as the government is in power. The change in the personnel in special positions such as Chairperson of the Central Social Welfare Board are, therefore, inevitable part of a change in the policy and programmes.
If a democratically elected government, therefore, feels that for effective implementation of its policies and programmes ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 16 a change in the personnel is necessary, it cannot be accused of malafide or pursuing an act of vendetta".
.
16 The sum and substance of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases is that if the government has a right to nominate it includes right to recall or remove the nominated member.
17 Similar reiteration of law has been reiterated in Gujarat 329.
r to Jagdishbhai Mafatlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2002 18 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Narain Agarwal and others versus Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur and others (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 242 has held that when a person is appointed by the State in exercise of its power of 'doctrine of pleasure', it is not necessary that such an appointee should continue for the entire period and he can be removed at any time while exercising power of 'doctrine of pleasure'.
19 The aforesaid judgment has been constantly followed by this Court and references can conveniently be made in this regard to the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Suresh Bhardwaj vs H.P University and others reported in 1994(1) SLC 185, Romesh Chander and another ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 17 Vs. State of H.P and another, 2004(1) SLC 377, Saroj .
Sharma vs State of H.P and another, 1999(2) SLC 222, CWP No. 279 of 2013 titled as Joginder Singh Verma Vs State of H.P. and another decided on 2.7.2013, CWP No. 9668 of 2013 titled as Dhaneshwari Thakur Vs State of H.P., decided on 15.7.2014, CWP No. 1135 of 2018 titledas Amit Nanda Vs State of H.P. and another decided on 22.11.2018 and CWP No. 8902/2022, titled as Pawan Jogta & ors. vs. State of H.P. & ors., decided on 10.3.2023.
20 Earlier to that, in Krishna vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 2 SCC 441, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that once the doctrine pleasure is accepted, neither principles of natural justice would step in, nor any question of giving an opportunity before removal would arise. As no stigma is cast by removal of the petitioners therefore there is no question of opportunity of hearing.
21 In PU Myllaihlychho vs. State of Mizoram, (2005) 2 SCC 92, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the appointment is at the pleasure of Vice Chancellor, the petitioners ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 18 therein were not required to be heard prior to their removal and .
there is no violation of principles of natural justice.
22 Thus, what can be deduced from the aforesaid judgments is that the scope of judicial review in the matters relating to appointments where the doctrine of pleasure is attracted is extremely limited.
23The "Doctrine of Pleasure" has its genesis under the common law. A public servant could be dismissed from service by the Crown at its pleasure. However, the doctrine lost the said trait when it was applied in India, which is a republic, wedded to the rule of law functioning under a written Constitution. The authoritarian doctrine, though couched in an unfettered manner, is but subject to the rule of law. While considering the justiciability on the exercise of the power of Doctrine of Pleasure, there is no adjudication of any lis. The contours of judicial review is confined to finding out if the exercise of the power was "arbitrary, capricious or malafide". There is no requirement of any notice preceding exercise of the power or to assign any cause for exercise of the power. Though there is no need to assign reasons, the need for a valid and compelling reason, exists. In ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 19 exercise of the doctrine of pleasure, the principles of natural .
justice have no application.
24 The ratio of the above decisions will apply with greater force in the present case, where the appointment/ nomination has no statutory basis whatsoever.
25 Learned counsel for the petitioner would however argue that the doctrine of pleasure as existing in the feudal set up has undergone a sea change as has been noticed r by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. P. Singhal vs. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 331, more particularly in paras 16 to 35 thereof.
26 We really fail to understand how the aforesaid judgment is applicable to the facts of the instant case and how it advances the case of the petitioner any further.
27 We have gone through the aforesaid judgment and find that therein though the doctrine of pleasure was discussed, but the same was only in the context of office of Governor(s), who hold a constitutional post, whereas it was unequivocally held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in exercise of power of doctrine of pleasure, principles of natural justice have no application.
::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 2028 Lastly, we need not to burden the judgment any .
further with regard to legal position and it would be suffice to take note of a fairly recent judgment passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in CWP No. 1135/2018, titled as Amit Nanda vs. State of H.P., decided on 22.11.2018, which pertained to the removal of Chairman and members of the same institute to which the petitioners belong, rejecting the contention of the petitioners therein to continue on their respective posts. It was held therein as under:
14. The Commission has been set up vide Notification dated 20.04.2016. As per Clause 4 thereof, the Chairperson and Non Official Members are to be nominated from amongst persons of ability, integrity and standing in society and who have served for the welfare and upliftment of the Scheduled Castes having educational qualifications not below that of a graduate. This Clause further provides that the Chairperson shall be from the Scheduled Caste category having eminence in public life or a retired Government servant not below the rank of Principal Secretary to the State Government belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. Clause 4 of the Notification which deals with the qualifications for nomination as Chairperson and Non Official Members reads as under:
"4. Qualifications for nomination as Chairperson and Non Official Members. (1) The Chairperson and NonOfficial ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 21 Members shall be nominated from amongst persons of ability, integrity and standing in society and who have .
served for the welfare and upliftment of the Scheduled Castes, having educational qualifications not below that of a graduate.
(2) Subject to the provisions of clause (1), (a) the Chairperson shall be from the Scheduled Castes categories having eminence in public life or a retired Government servant not below the rank of Principal Secretary to the State Government belonging to the Scheduled Castes categories; and (b) NonOfficial Members of the Commission shall be eminent persons of ability, integrity and standing, who have served for the welfare and upliftment of Scheduled Castes and having atleast graduation degree in any stream:
Provided that the NonOfficial Member from the legal profession must have at least ten years standing as an Advocate or must have at least ten years experience in dealing with legal matters.
Provided further that at least two Non Official Members including Chairperson shall be from Scheduled Castes categories.
The language of Clause 4(1) clearly demonstrates that the nomination of the Chairperson has to be "from amongst persons" of ability, integrity etc., meaning thereby that nomination has to be from amongst a group of persons who are qualified for being nominated as Chairperson and such nomination can obviously be made by the Authority only if ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 22 applications are invited by the Department from qualified persons so that the most suitable amongst them can be .
nominated as the Chairperson. As we have already mentioned above, record demonstrates that this exercise has not been undertaken by the Department before the nomination of the petitioner as the Chairperson. Vide impugned Notification dated 10th May, 2018, the Government has withdrawn the nominations of the Chairperson and NonOfficial Members of the Commission. Thus, it is not a case where either the Chairperson or the Members of the Commission have been removed by the Government.
15. Though in this writ petition we are not judicially reviewing the nomination of the petitioner as the Chairperson, yet this Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that perhaps the said nomination was not made by strictly following the procedure prescribed vide Notification dated 20.04.2016. It is in this background that now we have to examine the legality of Notification dated 10th May, 2018. As we have already mentioned above, vide impugned Notification, it is not as if the Chairperson or NonOfficial Members of the Commission have been removed. Their nominations stand withdrawn by the State Government vide Notification dated 10th May, 2018. We may hasten to add at this stage that it is mentioned in the reply by the State that the said Notification was issued pursuant to a policy decision taken by the State to disband the services of all nominated ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 23 Chairman(s)/Vice Chairman(s)/NonOfficial Members of all Board/Commissions and this policy decision has not been .
challenged by the petitioner.
16. At this stage, it is also important to state that a person is not per se appointed as a Chairperson of the Commission in issue. It is not a 'post' which is held by him. An eligible person is nominated to hold the office of the Chairperson of the Commission. This nomination is made by the State Government. The term of the office of the Chairperson is prescribed in the Notification as three years. This period of three years is not the minimum tenure but is the maximum and there is a proviso contained in Clause 3 of Notification dated 20.04.2016 (Annexure P1) that no Chairperson shall hold office for more than two terms.
17. The well recognized judicial tests to infer by implication as to whether appointment to an office is based on the 'pleasure doctrine' are (a) where appointment is to be made by the Government by nomination on the subjective satisfaction of the Government; and (b) when there is no minimum term of office in the Statute.
As far as the first test is concerned, Clause 4 of Notification dated 20.04.2016 itself demonstrates that said nomination by the State Government is based on the subjective satisfaction of the Government from amongst eligible persons. Besides this, there is no minimum term of office in the Notification and the term of three years mentioned therein is the maximum.
::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 2418. A Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 9668 of 2013G, titled as Dhaneshwari Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and .
others, decided on 15.07.2014 while answering the question as to whether a person/appointee, who came to be appointed without following any selection process, can claim that he/she be heard before he/she is removed, after relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others versus U.P. State Law Officers Association and others, (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 204, has held that a person who is appointed at the pleasure of the Government and came to be removed by the same pleasure, cannot claim that the order of removal has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice.
19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Narain Agarwal and others versus Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur and others (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 242 has held that when a person is appointed by the State in exercise of its power of 'doctrine of pleasure', it is not necessary that such an appointee should continue for the entire period and he can be removed at any time while exercising power of 'doctrine of pleasure'.
20. The principle of the power to remove an officer appointed at the pleasure of the State before completion of tenure has also been approved by this Court in Saroj Sharma versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, 1999(2) Shim. L.C. 222, as also by a Division Bench of this Court against in CWP No. 279 of 2013H, titled as Joginder ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS 25 Singh Verma versus State of H.P. and another, decided on 2nd July, 2013.
.
21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association and others, (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 204 has held that those who come by the back door have to go by the same door and those who come to be appointed by such arbitrary procedure can hardly complain if the termination of their appointment is equally arbitrary.
22. Applying the above stated tests in this case, in our considered view, the State has exercised its power of 'doctrine of pleasure' for withdrawing the nomination of the petitioner as the Chairperson of the Commission. Incidentally, in the present case, it is not as if the petitioner has been removed from the office in question.
29 In view of the aforesaid discussion and the settled legal position, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Virender Singh) 12.04.2023 Judge (pankaj) ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2023 20:39:32 :::CIS