The doctrine of pleasure applies to appointments made at the discretion of the government, and such appointments do not confer a fundamental right to continue in the position.

JUDGMENT :

Neela Gokhale J.

1. Rule. The contesting 2nd Respondent has filed an Affidavit in Reply. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The Petitioners assail order dated 2nd December 2022 cancelling their appointment as Members/Chairman of the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”).

3. The Petitioners No. 1 and 3 were appointed Members of the Commission and the 2nd Petitioner was appointed the Chairman of the Commission. The 2nd Respondent is the Social Justice and Special Assistance Department of the 1st Respondent, the State of Maharashtra. The 3rd Respondent is the Commission constituted within the 2nd Respondent Department. The Chief Minister of the State is arrayed as 4th Respondent.

4. The relief sought by the Petitioners is singular. Perturbed by changes in administration in the State, reversal/modification of various policies of the government, etc., which invariably follow a change in the government, the Petitioners are aggrieved by the cancellation of various appointments of non-official Members and other Members of the Statutory Boards, Committees, Commissions etc. Their charge is that such changes were made only with a view to accommodate supporters and workers of the ruling dispensation. The Petition is replete with instances of series of decisions taken by the Chief Minister/Deputy Chief Minister in discontinuing, cancelling, and modifying decisions of the earlier government, which the Petitioners complain to be against public interest. One such decision is cancellation of appointment of the Petitioners as Members/Chairman of the Commission.

5. Briefly, the facts reveal that by Government Order (“GO”) dated 1st March 2005, the Maharashtra State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission was established by the Social Justice, Cultural Affairs and Special Assistance Department. The 2nd Petitioner was appointed as Chairman and the Petitioners No.1 and 3 were appointed as Members of the Commission by a later GO dated 28th October 2021. The earlier tenure of the Commission was until 30th June 2009, which was further extended. The role of the Commission was to study existing situations (social, education, economic, cultural, political, etc.) among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State and to suggest various measures to improve them.

6. Annexures “A” and “B” to the GO dated 1st March 2005 provide for appointment, remuneration and allowances, etc., of the Members of the Commission. Annexure A provides the tenure of the Commission to be three years. It further provides that a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community would be nominated as the Chairman of the Commission for the first one and half year and thereafter he would be replaced by a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes community.

7. The Government in Maharashtra changed and the 4th Respondent was sworn in as -Chief Minister on 30th June 2022. It is the case of the Petitioners that upon taking over the reins of the government, the Chief Minister and the new administration cancelled appointments of as many as 197 Presidents and nonofficial members appointed on 29 Project Level (Planning Review) Committees in the Tribal Sub-plan Projects. The Petitioners complain that such an abrupt decision of cancellation of appointments was taken without affording an opportunity of hearing or assigning any reasons and is, therefore, in breach of the principles of natural justice. Similarly, the appointment of the Petitioners to the posts of Chairman/Members of the Commission was cancelled by GO dated 2nd December 2022. It is this GO that is assailed in the present Petition.

8. Mr Talekar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, contends that there was no reason to cancel or stay decisions of the earlier government particularly when the Government of Maharashtra had not received any complaints against allotment of projects, schemes, tenders or appo