JUDGMENT

Goutam Bhaduri, J. - Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Joint Secretary of the State of Chhattisgarh whereby the appointment of the petitioner to the Post of President, Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jati Ayog was terminated.

2. The facts of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as the President/Chairperson of Chhattisgarh State Anusuchit Jati Ayog vide order dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure P-4) under Section 3 of Chapter II of the Chhattisgarh (Rajya) Anuschit Jati Ayog Adhiniyam,1995 (for short "Adhiniyam,1995") for a period of 3 years. After completion of tenure on 16.07.2018, he was again appointed from 10th August,2018 until further order as the President of the Ayog vide Annexure P-5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined the post of President on 13.08.2018 which would be evident from the Communication dated 21.08.2018 (Annexure-P-6). The State Government on 28.05.2019 has terminated such appointment on the ground that subsequent appointment on 10.08.2018 was uptill further orders and therefore, the appointment stands cancelled by the impugned order (Annexure P-1). The said cancellation is subject of challenge in this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appointment having been made as per Section 4 of the Adhiniyam,1995 the petitioner would continue to the post for a period of 3 years and in sub-section (3) of section 4 certain grounds are enumerated for removal of a person from the office of member that too under the proviso to clause, therefore, a person cannot be removed unless he has been given opportunity of hearing. It is stated that the termination order (Annexure P-1), would show that no reasons have been assigned. He placed ( Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India and others, (1992) 3 SCC 526) ; ( Ram Dial v. State of Punjab, (1965) AIR SC 1518) & ( Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Union of India, (1981) AIR SC 818 ) and would submit that the order of removal would be bad in law and therefore requires to be set aside.

4. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the State that the petitioner was wrongly appointed directly to the post of President. It is stated after appointment as an initial Member of Ayog on 01.07.2015 the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Commission after a period of 3 years. Referring to Annexure P-5 it is stated that the petitioner was directly appointed as a Chairperson and as per the provision of Section 3 Sub-section (2) Clause (a) of the Adhiniyam, the Chairperson has to be appointed amongst non-official members. It is further stated that since the initial appointment was defective, such defect was cured by subsequent removal. It is stated that out of the 3 members, only one would be qualified to be appointed as Chairperson and if a person is not appointed as a member, then in such a case he cannot be appointed as Chairperson. It is further stated that the appointment order itself would show that the appointment was made until further orders. Therefore, if such order has come to an end by termination, no illegality can be attributed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. The appointment was made under the Chhattisgarh (Rajya) Anusuchit Jati Ayog Adhiniyam 1995. Section 2 of the Adhiniyam is about "definitions". The relevant clause reads as under:

2. Definitions, - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires :-

(a) "Commission" means the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Anusuchit Jati Ayog constituted under section 3;

(b) "Member" means a member of the Commission and includes the chairperson;

(c) "Scheduled Castes" means such castes, races or tribes or parts of, or groups within such castes, races or tribes specified as Scheduled Castes with respect to the State of Madhya Pradesh under Article 341 of the Constitution of India

6. Likewise Chapter II of the Adhiniyam,1995 provides for "Constitution of the State Commission for Anusuchit Jati". Secti