IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
CWJC No. 3472 of 2024
(25.4.2025)
Rajendra Kumar & Ors. ... Petitioners
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Service Law – Removal – From post of Chairman and Members of State Scheduled Caste Commission – Petitioners were appointed by way of nomination by State Government without any application having been called from them much less they having undergone any selection process and now they have been removed from their posts with immediate effect in public interest and from administrative view point – Present case is not a case where removal of petitioners is totally attributable to pleasure of Government – Commission was not functioning in public interest and for desired administrative objectives and continuance of petitioners and others was not in larger public interest – Commission is not a statutory body nor petitioners are governed by any rules made under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India – They do not hold civil posts and protection under Article 311 of Constitution of India is not available to them. (Para 22)
Constitution of India – Article 311 – Removal from service – In case office of concerned incumbent is at pleasure of concerned authorities, opportunity of hearing before termination is not required apart from constitutional protection and privileges available under Article 311 being not available to a nominated incumbent – It is not imperative to insist for compliance of principles of natural justice – If doctrine of pleasure is invoked for nomination, it can also be invoked for removal or termination unless Legislature so prescribes – Petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any malafide – Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 23, 24, 25 and 28)
Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the notification dated 02.02.2024, issued under the signature of the Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, i.e. the Respondent No. 3 by which, in terms of Clause 4 (Ga) of the resolution contained in memo No. 5614 dt. 18.11.2009, due to administrative exigency as also in public interest, the petitioners have been removed from the post of Chairman and Members of the State Scheduled Caste Commission. The petitioners have further prayed to direct the Respondents to restore them to their respective posts with effect from 2.2.2024 and accordingly, pay the outstanding salary and emoluments from the date of removal i.e. 2.2.2024.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioners, are that the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as the Chairman of the State Scheduled Caste Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) for a period of three years, vide notification contained in memo No. 14144 dated 25.7.2023, issued by the Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, while the petitioners No. 2 and 3 were appointed as Members of the Commission, vide notification dated 25.7.2023. It has been stated that the petitioner No. 1 is a highly reputed person of the society and was elected as a member of the legislative assembly from Harsidhi for the term 2015-2020 and was awarded with Dalit Sahitya Academy Award in the year 2011. As far as the petitioners No. 2 and 3 are concerned, it has been stated that they are social workers and work for the upliftment of the people of the weaker sections of the society. It has been contended that the General Administration Department, vide resolution contained in memo dated 18.11.2009, took a decision for constitution of the aforesaid Commission for promoting the interest of the people belonging to the scheduled caste and for their upliftment, growth and equal representation in the society as also for providing equality of status and opportunity and to secure justice, social, economic and political. Clause 2 of the said resolution dated 18.11.2009 prescribes that the Commission would consist of one Chairman, one Vice-Chairman and three members. Clause 3 of the said resolution dated 18.11.2009 prescribes the duties and responsibilities of the Commission. In note 3 of Clause 3 of the aforesaid resolution dated 18.11.2009, the Commission is prohibited from doing any work, which is against the objective of the Central Scheduled Caste Commission and in Clause 4 (A), the term of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Member has been fixed for three years from the date of assuming the office. Cause 4(Ga) of the aforesaid resolution dated 18.11.2009 prescribes that the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members can be removed by the State Government for such reasons, as may be specified later.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that after formation of the new Government on 28.1.2024, all of a sudden after four days by a notification dated 02.02.2024, the State Government through the General Administration Department removed the petitioners from the post of Chairman and Members of the said Commission without assigning any valid reason. In fact, by three notifications dated 02.02.2024, the Chairman and Members of the State Commission for Extremely Backward Class, Mahadalit Commission and the State Commission for Scheduled Tribe were also removed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the petitioners were appointed for a period of 3 years, however, they have been removed before expiry of the said period in an arbitrary and illegal manner without specifying any reason. In fact, no opportunity has been granted to the petitioners to furnish their explanation before their removal, which amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice.
4. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that as per Clause 4(
PU Myllai Hlychho vs. State of Mizoram
B. P. Singhal vs. Union of India
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of U.P.
Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs. Union of India
Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Nari Gunjan vs. Union of India
Subodh Kumar vs. State of Bihar
Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India
State of U.P. vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association
"Doctrine of Pleasure" has its genesis under common law - A public servant could be dismissed from service by Crown at its pleasure.
The doctrine of pleasure permits removal from office without notice or reason, provided it is not arbitrary, and does not apply to those not holding civil posts under the Constitution.
The doctrine of pleasure allows for removal from office without notice or reason, provided it is not arbitrary, and does not apply to those holding civil posts under the Constitution.
The doctrine of pleasure permits removal from office without adherence to principles of natural justice when the appointee does not hold a civil post.
The doctrine of pleasure does not permit arbitrary or capricious exercise of power by the State, and such actions must comply with principles of fairness and Article 14 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Doctrine of Pleasure cannot be invoked in an arbitrary manner, and valid reasons are required for the removal of an appointed member. The ....
The Governor's power to remove nominated Chairmen of Zilla Grandhalaya Samsthas under Section 11(3) of the Act is not absolute and is subject to the procedure prescribed under Section 18-A of the Act....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.