Change in policy after new government assumes power cannot be struck down as arbitrary: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on June 20 refused to quash an order passed by the Eknath Shinde government cancelling appointments to the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes..A division bench bench of Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale said that changes in social policy after change in government is part of the democratic process and cannot be considered arbitrary and malafide for that reason alone. “A change in social policy followed by a change in government is part of the democratic process and a change in implementation of policies and programmes per se cannot be charged as arbitrary or mala fide,” the bench said in its order. .The bench further observed that nomination of the petitioners to the posts in question was an executive order and could be cancelled by the government’s executive order.“We have no hesitation in holding that the order cancelling the appointments of the petitioners to the posts of Chairman/Members of the Commission respectively cannot be said to be illegal. No fundamental right to continue on the said posts is vested in the petitioners. The government order of December 2, 2022 cancelling their appointment cannot be held arbitrary or discriminatory,” the bench held. .The High Court passed the verdict in a plea by three pensioners who challenged the cancellation of their appointment as chairman and members of the State commission. One of the petitioners was appointed as chairman of the commission while the other two were appointed as members for a term of three years. The petition filed by advocate Satish Talekar claimed that after the Eknath Shinde government took in June 2022, their appointment were quashed.It was further pointed out that the appointments of 197 presidents and non-official members appointed on 29 project level (planning review) committees were cancelled. .The petitioners alleged that these changes were made with a view to accommodate supporters and workers of the ruling government. Talekar argued that the decisions were also taken without giving a hearing or assigning reasons thus breaching the principles of natural justice.Advocate General Dr Birendra Saraf opposed the plea on behalf of State and defended the government’s decision. He stated that the concerned posts were not civil posts and the members of the commission serve at the pleasure of the government.The bench agreed with Saraf’s submission. .It held that the petitioners were nominated at the sole discretion of the government without following any selection procedure or inviting applications from the general public. “Such appointments had to be treated as one under the pleasure of the government and not in any nature of an employment,” the bench said. The Court further said that the nomination of the petitioners to the posts in question was an executive order and the same can be cancelled by the government’s executive order.“The petitioners have no fundamental or legal right to the posts. Consequently, there is no requirement of any justification or of giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners for their removal,” the Court said..[Read order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.