STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. PADMA CHANDRAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cancellation of nomination of the writ petitioners/respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 as per Annexure P/1 and P/2 proceedings, for the reason that they were only 'nominated' and had not undergone any due process of selection to hold the office as members of State Women Commission, which came to be interdicted by the learned Single Judge for not complying with the statutory mandate, in particular, under Section 4 of Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 (referred to as "Act of 1995"), is put to challenge in this appeal filed at the instance of the State.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Siddharth Dubey, the learned Deputy Government Advocate representing the State at length.

(3.) As per the scheme of the Act of 1995, it is for the State Government to constitute a State Commission for Women in the manner as provided under Section 3 of the Act of 1995. Under the said provision, the Commission shall consist of a Chairperson who shall be an eminent woman social worker or a professional committed to the cause of women, to be nominated by the State Government, besides Six members, to be nominated by the State Government from amongst persons of ability, integrity and standing. Amongst the six members, one shall be an official; one shall be an eminent Advocate; two shall be social workers of repute and the remaining two shall be experts in education and health. Proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 3 says that, out of the six members, one shall be from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes respectively and under sub-section 3, it is stipulated that an Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Secretary to the State Government shall be the member representing the State. It was in compliance with the statutory prescription as above, that the State Government had identified the persons concerned and nomination was effected accordingly. Petitioners No. 1 and 3 were identified as 'social workers' of repute and petitioner No. 2 was nominated in the capacity as an 'eminent lawyer'. The 1st and 2nd petitioners were nominated as per the proceedings dated 29-10-2016; whereas the 3rd petitioner came to be nominated as per the proceedings dated 31-08-2017.