Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Cancellation of Appointments to Non-Statutory Commission. Appointees Held to Serve at Pleasure; No Right to Tenure or Hearing; Change in Policy by New Government Not Arbitrary.

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the cancellation of appointments as Chairman/Members of a non-statutory commission.

Quashing of the Government Order dated 2nd December 2022 which cancelled the appointments of the petitioners as Chairman/Members of the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The petitioners' appointments were cancelled by the new government without any stated reason or prior hearing, allegedly to facilitate appointments of political supporters, and they contended that the earlier government's decision could not be reversed merely due to a change in administration.

There is another pending writ petition, No. 9353 of 2022, filed by the same petitioners and others challenging similar government actions staying or cancelling schemes/projects, in which the petitioners had also raised the apprehension about the cancellation of their appointments; no orders had been passed and the petition was still pending.

Whether the cancellation of appointment of the petitioners as Chairman/Members of the Commission is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Whether the petitioners had a legal right to continue in office for the specified three-year tenure. Whether a change in government per se justifies the cancellation of appointments made by the previous government. Whether filing multiple writ petitions for the same relief constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

The petitioners argued that their tenure of three years had not expired, the impugned order did not disclose any reasons, there was no complaint regarding their performance, and cancellation without hearing breached natural justice; they also contended that the doctrine of pleasure cannot be used arbitrarily or whimsically. The respondents argued that the Commission was not statutory, the members served at the pleasure of the government, no civil posts were involved, and hence no right to tenure or hearing existed; they further pointed out that the petitioners had already filed another petition seeking the same relief, which amounted to abuse of process.

Nomination to a non-statutory commission by executive order does not confer any legal right to the post; the appointee serves at the pleasure of the government. A three-year tenure mentioned in the appointment order does not imply a minimum guaranteed period. Removal from such a post does not require adherence to natural justice as no civil right is affected. A change in government can validly lead to a change in policy and appointments, and such action is not per se arbitrary. Filing multiple writ petitions for the same relief before different benches is an abuse of the court's process.

Such an appointment has to be treated as one under the pleasure of the government and not in the nature of any employment or appointment under Part XIV of the Constitution. A change in social policy followed by a change in government is part of the democratic process and a change in implementation of policies and programmes per se cannot be charged as arbitrary or mala fide. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and deserves to be decried.

The petitioners filed the present writ petition directly in the High Court. After notice, the 2nd respondent filed an affidavit in reply. By consent, rule was made returnable forthwith. The matter was heard and reserved on 12th June 2023 and pronounced on 20th June 2023. Meanwhile, another writ petition (No. 9353 of 2022) seeking similar and additional relief was pending before another bench of the same court.

• Constitution of India: Part XIV