Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

49 Then, it is alleged that the respondent has not answered the petitioner's grievances with regard to the rules. It is claimed that the rules are extremely vague. They do not set out the procedure for selection of suitable candidates for nomination. Further, the requirement of professional background and qualification is specified only for eight members, whereas, the rest 7 do not require a qualification other than membership of the Bhakta Mandal. None of the members of the newly constituted Management Committee are members of the Bhakta Mandal any time before July, 2016. Therefore, the appointments have been made without any definite criteria or qualification. J.V.Salunke,P.S. PIL.102.2016.Judgment.doc 50 The constitution of the Committee, according to the rules, requires at least one member shall be appointed from the category of women and socially and economically weaker section and eight from persons possessing professional or specialised knowledge within the meaning of section 5(2) and up to seven members from general category. However, the mandatory 10 members have not been appointed from particular categories and no application of mind can be seen in appointing conveniently picked persons from specific categories. Then, it is alleged that there is no compliance with the requirement of obtaining a verification or police report prior to appointing the respondents as members of the Management Committee. In that behalf, Rule 6(ii) of the Rules of 2013 has been referred. It is claimed that verification or police report in respect of the appointments made to the Management Committee was done only in case of four members and not the other eight. On this ground alone, the order dated 28th July, 2016 constituting the Management Committee deserves to be quashed. Moreover, the reports of the police verification are not placed on record. There is nothing to show that the character verification of all the members appointed on the Management Committee of the Sansthan has been carried out. In these circumstances, it is claimed that if the rules themselves are vague, do not lay down any criteria, then, the same are also J.V.Salunke,P.S. PIL.102.2016.Judgment.doc unsustainable in law. The qualifications prescribed in respect of 'C' category that these eight persons shall have educational background with professional or specialised knowledge or work experience in one or more fields have nothing to do with the criteria fixed for the purpose of selection. There could be lakhs of candidates having educational background with professional or specialised knowledge or practical experience in one or more of the fields prescribed in Rule 3(2) of the Rules. Therefore, unless a Committee is constituted of experts, who will invite interested persons or have otherwise knowledge regarding the contribution of several persons in the social causes, the selection cannot be foolproof. The selection cannot be left to the sweet will, whims and fancies of the Government and particularly the Minister in- charge of Law and Judiciary. The selection of the candidate must be transparent rather than shrouded in secrecy. Thus, the Rules confer unbridled power on the Government to pick and choose the candidates of its choice. The selection made in this case is without prescribing any criteria. Hence, it suffers from arbitrariness. Then, in para 21 of the rejoinder, the factors with regard to persons belonging to category 'D' have been set out and it is submitted that it is not just the membership of Bhakt Mandal which will suffice but possession of Bachelors degree, residence in Shirdi or Ahmednagar district, contribution made to social or J.V.Salunke,P.S. PIL.102.2016.Judgment.doc educational causes and or social and educational development and the person being a member of the Parliament or Assembly Constituency or member of State legislature representing Shirdi. None of these factors are applied to the appointment of respondent nos. 4, 11, 13 and 14. Moreover, out of five members from the general category, three are from Mumbai. The Chairman of the managing committee Shri. Suresh Havare is builder and is financing the Bhartiya Janta party for the purpose of elections. Respondent no. 4 is not even a graduate. None of the five candidates appointed from the general category i.e. 'D' category have contributed to the social or educational cause or development. Similarly, none of the five members in the general category is Member of Parliament or State Legislature from the Shirdi Constituency. Thus, the appointments of all the members suffer from arbitrariness, the same are malafide and politically motivated. None of the members possess an impeccable character or known as men of high rectitude. On the contrary, all the members possess either political or criminal background or in any case have allegation of misconduct.

63 Then, our attention is invited to the allegations as far as respondent no. 5, whose appointment is made as Vice Chairman. Though, it is stated that his appointment is in category 'C' as a rural development expert, still, if Rule 3(1) is perused, the second respondent does not meet the requisite qualifications and in terms of the Schedule to the rules. He ought to be a graduate, possessing 10 years work experience in rural development and ought to be rewarded for his work either at national or State level. His Bio-Data does not mention his qualifications and even in this case, no police verification has been undertaken. It is stated that in the writ petition, it has been pointed out as to how respondent no. 2 was unfit for appointment. J.V.Salunke,P.S. PIL.102.2016.Judgment.doc 64 Then, respondent no. 6 has been appointed as a member of this Managing Committee from category 'A' (women category). This appointment is in exercise of the power, which is unbridled. There are no guidelines so as to guide the authorities in making appointments from this category. There is a violation of section 7(3) and Rule 5(4), inasmuch as after appointment, she has, as a part of the bitter political relations between the Bhartiya Janata Party and Shiv Sena, been abstaining herself from attending any meeting. She has, in terms of the directions of her party high command, refused to co-operate because the Chief Minister of the State did not keep his promise of awarding the Vice Chairmanship of the Trust to a Shive Sena member. 65 Apart from this, her appointment also violates section 9(f) and Rule 6(2). No police verification has been undertaken. The sixth respondent is also charge-sheeted for offences punishable under sections 37(1), 37(3) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The attention of this court is invited to certain documents, which are mentioned in the Annexures as also in the compilations to support the argument that the only consideration for her appointment is the proximity to the political party in power. Similarly, it is submitted that this court, in several orders and particularly in the order dated 30 th March, 2012 in Public Interest Litigation No.27 of 2012 as well as order dated 13 th J.V.Salunke,P.S. PIL.102.2016.Judgment.doc March, 2012 in Public Interest Litigation No. 18 of 2011 and the judgment and order dated 2nd May, 2013 in Public Interest Litigation No. 27 of 2012, criticised the State for making appointments only on this consideration.

85 Mr. Dixit would submit that it is his duty to satisfy the judicial conscience of the court. Therefore, on instructions, he has stated that ordinarily a report from the police is called for. Rule 6(ii) has been referred by Mr. Dixit to submit that a police report/verification is one of the sources of obtaining information. There are other sources from which the State obtains the relevant J.V.Salunke,P.S. PIL.102.2016.Judgment.doc information with regard to the conduct and character of those whom the State desires to appoint. Mr. Dixit would submit that section 5 employs the word "appoint". In these circumstances, it is not compulsory or incumbent on the State to invite applications from the members of the public. It is the prerogative of the State to make appointment and while making the appointment, the State is guided by sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act. Eventually, the word "appointment" does not necessarily mean and in terms of the executive powers vesting in the State, an appointment in the services of the State. In other words, the appointment under the Act cannot be equated with public employment. Mr. Dixit also invites our attention to the rules to submit that Shri. Saibaba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi (Appointment of Members of Management Committee and Forms of Declaration) Rules, 2013 envisage appointments and Rule 6 clarifies that appointment of members shall be made by the State by nomination. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Talekar that the State is obliged to invite applications from the general public or if members of the public make applications seeking appointment, the State must necessarily consider them or is obliged to consider them. There is nothing in the scheme of the Act and the rules to suggest this course. Mr. Talekar's first contention, therefore, should fail is the argument of Mr. Dixit. J.V.Salunke,P.S. PIL.102.2016.Judgment.doc 86 Mr. Dixit then submitted that Mr. Talekar's arguments with regard to the nature of the power vesting in the State Government also deserve to be rejected. Mr. Dixit submits that he has already pointed out that the executive power vesting in the Government of making appointments has been exercised reasonably and fairly. There is a presumption that all actions or orders of the State are reasonable and fair unless proved otherwise. Therefore, once the State Government acted in terms of a report of the police or prior verification by the police or official sources and then made the appointments, then, all care has been taken. The State has acted transparently, fairly and reasonably. None of the petitioners, who claim to be public spirited citizens, possesses any vested right. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Dixit submits that it is the absolute power of the State Government and nothing can be added in or subtracted from the provision. It is only when a person commits any act specifically enumerated in the clauses of section 9(1), he is disqualified. By reading something in the provision, a disqualification not provided specifically therein cannot be inserted. Mr.Dixit submits that the police verification record is available with the State and he has handed it over in a sealed cover.

99 Similar is the case of respondent no. 5. He has no experience of any work in rural development. His only qualification is that he was a MLA. There is no request to close the prosecution on the date of the appointment of respondent no.5. He is thus a person with criminal antecedents. The request to close the criminal prosecution is made post filing of this PIL. Our attention is invited to page 61 of the compilation to submit that the prosecution against respondent no. 5 is still pending. Even in his case, there are no particulars forthcoming of any prior police verification or a report being called for from the concerned police station.