BHANU PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ petition, the petitioners sought a relief to hold that the action of the respondent authorities in issuance of the impugned order dtd. 15/12/2023 bearing No.F 19-02/2020/25-1(Part) (Annexure - P/2) whereby the State of Chhattisgarh has removed and terminated the services of the petitioners herein in utter and flagrant violation and noncompliance of the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog (Sansodhan) Adhiniyam, 2020 is bad in law. The petitioners also sought a relief to issue a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order dtd. 15/12/2023 (Annexure - P/2).

(2.) (i) The facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh had enacted the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995. Pursuant to reorganisation of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the State of Chhattisgarh was carved out on 1/11/2000. In the light of provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000, the State of Chhattisgarh vide Gazette Notification dtd. 2/9/2002 substituted the Names: "Madhya Pradesh" with "Chhattisgarh" and "Bhopal" with "Raipur", Thus, now the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 is known as Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995. The State of Chhattisgarh has enacted the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2020 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 2020') to amend the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995. Sec. 3 of the Adhiniyam, 2020 provides for constitution of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog whereas Sec. 4 provides for the term of office of service of Chairperson and Members.

(3.) (a) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there is a flagrant violation of the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 2020 as neither the manner prescribed for removal under Sec. 4(3) has been followed nor the opportunity of hearing as provided by the proviso accorded to the Petitioners before passing the order impugned dtd. 15/12/2023 (Annexure-P/2). He would further submit that even if it is assumed that the appointment of the petitioners is a 'political appointment' subject to the 'pleasure of the State Government', the well established principle of the 'doctrine of pleasure' neither envisages and empowers the State Government to bypass and flout the provisions of law, nor confers complete autonomy upon the State Government to flagrantly ignore the due process of law. A statutory Act/Scheme providing a manner and mechanism has to be followed in its letter and spirit, as any deviation from the same, would result in absolute chaos resulting in according unfettered discretion to the State Government resulting in complete autonomy without any checks and balances. (b) Learned counsel would submit that the action of the respondent authorities in issuance of the impugned order whereby the State of Chhattisgarh has terminated the services of the Petitioners is in blatant, complete and utter violation of law. The respondent authority is a 'state' and is duty bound in law to act in a fair manner. The impugned action is in complete contrast to the settled law that where the Government is dealing with the public, it cannot act arbitrarily as per their whims and fancies and like a private individual, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.