RAMJI BHARTI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Joint Secretary of the State of Chhattisgarh whereby the appointment of the petitioner to the Post of President, Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jati Ayog was terminated.

(2.) The facts of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as the President/Chairperson of Chhattisgarh State Anusuchit Jati Ayog vide order dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure P-4) under Section 3 of Chapter II of the Chhattisgarh (Rajya) Anuschit Jati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 (for short "Adhiniyam, 1995") for a period of 3 years. After completion of tenure on 16.07.2018, he was again appointed from 10th August, 2018 until further order as the President of the Ayog vide Annexure P-5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined the post of President on 13.08.2018 which would be evident from the Communication dated 21.08.2018 (Annexure-P-6). The State Government on 28.05.2019 has terminated such appointment on the ground that subsequent appointment on 10.08.2018 was uptill further orders and therefore, the appointment stands cancelled by the impugned order (Annexure P-1). The said cancellation is subject of challenge in this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appointment having been made as per Section 4 of the Adhiniyam, 1995 the petitioner would continue to the post for a period of 3 years and in sub-section (3) of section 4 certain grounds are enumerated for removal of a person from the office of member that too under the proviso to clause, therefore, a person cannot be removed unless he has been given opportunity of hearing. It is stated that the termination order (Annexure P-1), would show that no reasons have been assigned. He placed reliance in (1992) 3 SCC 526 (Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India and others); AIR 1965 SC 1518 Ram Dial v. State of Punjab) and AIR 1981 SC 818 (Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Union of India) and would submit that the order of removal would be bad in law and therefore requires to be set aside.