(Ramesh Ranganathan, ACJ.)

1. Both W.A. Nos.1220 and 1225 of 2016 are preferred by the 4th respondent and respondent Nos.1 and 2, in W.P. No.14299 of 2016, respectively aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 04.11.2016 setting aside the appointment of the 4th respondent as the Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, vide G.O.Ms. No.45 dated 13.04.2016, on grounds of illegality and procedural impropriety. The parties in these appeals shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in W.P No.14299 of 2016.

2. The petitioners, five in number, filed W.P. No.14299 of 2016 to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Ms. No.45 dated 13.04.2016 appointing the 4th respondent as the Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter called the “Commission”) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and to direct the 1st respondent to empanel candidates for being considered for appointment as the Chairman of the Commission.

3. G.O.Ms. No.44 dated 13.04.2016 was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, in the exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the A.P. State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2003 (hereinafter called the 2003 Act) reconstituting the Commission. On the very same day, G.O.Ms. No.45 dated 13.04.2016 was issued nominating the 4th respondent as the Chairman of the reconstituted Commission. The term of the Chairman was to be for a period of three years from the date he assumed office or until he attained the age of sixty five years, whichever was earlier. G.O.Ms. No.45 dated 13.04.2016, whereby the 4th respondent was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission, was subjected to challenge in W.P. No.12499 of 2016, resulting in the order under appeal being passed.

4. In W.P. No.14299 of 2016 the Learned Single Judge framed the following five points for consideration:

(1) Whether the appointment of the Chairman, under Section 5(1)(a) of the 2003 Act, could be based on the ‘pleasure doctrine’ or whether prescription of a fixed term in Section 6 made the said principle inapplicable?

(2) Whether absence of Rules under Section 18 of the Act gave the 1st respondent the power to make appointment to the post of Chairman as per it’s free will and choice?

(3) Whether the selection of an ‘eminent person’ in clause 5(1)(a) should be based on objective criteria, and whether the person should at least satisfy the minimum criteria mentioned in clause 5(1)(b) for appointing ordinary Members of the Commission?

(4) Whether the petitioners have locus standi to file the Writ Petition?

(5) Whether appointment of the 4th respondent, as the Chairman of the Commission, required reconsideration in the light of the provisions of the Act?

5. On point No.1 the Learned Single Judge, on an analysis of the provisions of the Act, held that there was nothing in any of the provisions of the Act, or any Rule, for simple termination of a person nominated as the Chairman; no Rule could be made for simple termination without notice, as Section 6 of the Act only prescribed the grounds of disqualification to be enumerated in the Rules; the 2003 Act was a piece of social legislation to safeguard the interests of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes; the 2003 Act sought to implement the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution relating to untouchability; it was made in furtherance of Article 38 of the Constitution to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of all the people, and for achieving equal justice under Article 39-A; it was also meant to promote the education and economic interests of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes under Article 46; and, therefore, appointment of members and the Chairman of the Commission did not attract the pleasure doctrine. The Learned Single Judge further held that the 2003 Act required an