The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant ruling, has upheld the termination of the Chairperson and Members of the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribe Commission, stating that individuals appointed at the pleasure of the government can be removed at any time without notice, reason, or hearing. The decision, delivered by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru in WPC No. 206 of 2024, rejected the petition challenging their removal by the new state government.
Background of the Case
The case involved four petitioners—Bhanu Pratap Singh (Chairperson), Ganesh Dhruw, Amrit Lal Toppo, and Archana Porte (Members)—who were appointed to the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog (Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribe Commission) by the previous state government on July 16, 2021. The appointments were made under Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2020, which specifies that the Chairperson and Members shall hold office “during the pleasure of the state government”.
However, following the State Legislative Assembly elections in 2023, the new government issued an order on December 15, 2023, directing the removal of politically appointed officials. The petitioners were subsequently terminated from their positions on the same day, without any notice or hearing.
Legal Issues and Arguments
The petitioners, represented by Advocate K. Rohan, contended that:
1. The removal was in violation of Section 4(3) of the 2020 Act, which specifies that a Member can be removed only under certain conditions, such as insolvency, criminal conviction, mental incapacity, or misconduct.
2. The proviso to Section 4(3) states that no person shall be removed without being given an opportunity of hearing, which was not followed.
3. The doctrine of pleasure does not allow the government to act arbitrarily, and the removal was an act of political vendetta.
On the other hand, Additional Advocate General R.S. Marhas, representing the State of Chhattisgarh, argued that:
1. The appointments were purely at the pleasure of the government, and the doctrine of pleasure allows removal without notice or cause.
2. The December 15, 2023 order did not impose any stigma on the petitioners and was a routine administrative action.
3. Since the petitioners were not elected nor appointed through any selection process, they had no vested right to continue in office.
4. The Supreme Court precedents in Om Narain Agrawal v. Nagar Palika and B.P. Singhal v. Union of India confirm that nominated officeholders can be removed at the government’s pleasure.
High Court’s Observations and Ruling
After considering the arguments, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled in favor of the state government, making the following key observations:
1. Doctrine of Pleasure Validly Invoked: The petitioners were appointed at the pleasure of the government, and their removal was justified. The court stated:
“Since the petitioners were nominated with the pleasure of the earlier government and their ideology is not in sync with the policies or ideologies of the present government, the withdrawal of pleasure does not put any stigma on their performance and character.”
2. No Requirement for Hearing: The opportunity of hearing under Section 4(3) does not apply, as the petitioners were not removed for misconduct but as an administrative decision by the new government.
3. Appointments Were Political in Nature: The court emphasized that the appointment was not a result of any selection process but a political nomination, making their removal justified.
4. Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents: The doctrine of pleasure was upheld, as interpreted in various judgments, including:
– Om Narain Agrawal v. Nagar Palika (1993)
– M. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala (1973)
– B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010)
5. Political Appointments Can Be Revoked: The court concluded that:
“A nominated member does not have a vested right to continue in office. If the appointment has been made initially by nomination, there can be no violation of any constitutional provision if the legislature authorizes the government to terminate such an appointment at its pleasure.”
Final Verdict
The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the termination of the petitioners, stating:
“Holder of an office ‘under pleasure of the Government’ could be removed at any time without notice, without assigning cause and without there being a need for any cause.”
Case Details:
Case Title: Bhanu Pratap Singh & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Case Number: WPC No. 206 of 2024
Bench: Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Petitioners’ Lawyer: K. Rohan
State’s Lawyer: R.S. Marhas, Additional Advocate General
