PADMA CHANDRAKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 26/12/2018 (Annexure P1) and the order dated 20/12/2018 (Annexure P-2). The case of the petitioners are that the petitioners were removed as members of the Rajya Mahila Ayog. It is contended that the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.3 were appointed in the capacity of social worker in the State Commission of Women and the petitioner No.2 being an eminent advocate was appointed as a member of State Commission for Women.

(3.) It is stated that as per Section 4 of the C. G. Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam 1995 ( for short "The Adhiniyam of 1995") the term of the member would be of three years and the removal of such members from the office of State Commission of Women can only be on the specific ground and ground on which petitioners were removed which do not support the cause. According to the petitioners, before removing them, the Adhiniyam contemplates that opportunity of hearing should have given. Therefore, in this case when the petitioners were not given any hearing before they were removed and on the basis of blanket order, which do not apply to the petitioners, the membership of the petitioners have been wrongly terminated. He submits that the doctrine of pleasure as has been stated by the State government can not be applied in this case as specific law govern in the same.