Retired govt officials move Bombay High Court against new regime's stay on appointments notified by previous government

A petition has been filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the decision of the State's new Eknath Shinde-led government to stay circulars relating to appointments and developmental projects taken up by the earlier government [Kishor Uttamrao Gajbhiye v. State of Maharashtra]..The petitioners are retired State and Central government officials who have claimed that communications issued to various departments for staying various projects, schemes and works approved by the previous government were without jurisdiction.“The Hon’ble Chief Minister is not empowered either under the Constitution or under the Conduct of Business Rules framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India to stay or nullify the decisions of the earlier government which were lawfully taken,” reads the plea..Pertinently, the petition brings to light that these circulars also included the cancellation of the petitioners' appointment to the Maharashtra State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission.It is claimed that the decision of the Chief Minister to stay projects and schemes, especially those taken in the interest of Scheduled Castes, Tribes and Backward Classes was arbitrary, unwise and politically motivated..The plea highlights that as per Article 164 (1A) of the Constitution of India, there shall be no less than 12 ministers to constitute a Council of Ministers. However, the number was only 2 since the new Chief Minister was sworn in. In this light, the plea reads,“In the absence of a duly constituted council of ministers, the government ought not to have taken such major decisions of staying the developmental projects and cancellation of appointments.. particularly when such decisions were underway and partly implemented.”.The petitioners submitted that these decisions were taken in furtherance of the interests of marginalised groups that too on the recommendations of the District Planning Committees while following due process.“The state could not change its stand merely because the other political party has come into power.”.In this regard, reliance was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v K Shyam Sunder where it was held that unless an act done by the authority earlier in was either contrary to statutory provisions, unreasonable, or against public interest, the State should not change its stand.“Political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of rule of law”, the top court had ruled.It is the petitioners’ stand that the decision was an act of political expediency, taken with a view to please and place support by offering individuals bureaucratic berths..The petitioners, thus, prayed for quashing of these communications. For the purpose of interim protection, it was urged that there may be a stay on their implementation..The petition was filed through Talekar & Associates.