AFZALUDDIN S K Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges the order of the Government in G.O.Ms. No.26, A.P. Minorities Welfare (MFC) Department, dated 21-2-1995. The impugned G.O., recites that in view of the change in the Government, Mr. Abdul Karim Khan who was hitherto Chairman to the A.P. Minorities Commission has tendered his resignation and as such the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Minorities Commission should take action with regard to Members as they have to paye way for new constitution of the Commission. This is on the premise that the office of the Members of the commissioner is co-terminus with that of the Chairman. When the Commission was first constituted in the year 1993 under G.O.Ms. No.424, General Administration (Poll.B) Department, dated 4-8-1993, the petitioner was not a nominated member. There were only four members on the body of the Commission including the Chairman. The petitioner was nominated later in G.O.Ms. No.572, General Administration (Poll.D) Department, dated 28-10-1993 and the period meetioned therein was only one year. By G.O.Ms. No.91, A.P. Minorities Welfare (MFC) Department, dated 4-11-1994, his period was extended for two years beyond 28-10-1994 with that of other members of A.P. Minorities Commission. Another G.O., i.e., G.O.Ms. No.92, A.P. Minorities Welfare (MFC) Department, dated 14-11-1994 was issued stating that the extension of the term of the petitioner as a member beyond 28-10-1994 was to be co-terminus with the term of the Chairman and other members of the Commission.

(2.) Mr. Mirza Munawar Ali Baig, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently submits that the petitioner isa well known social worker for the past quarter century and that he is not affiliated to any political parry and that he isen titled to function for one more year i.e., till 27-6-1996 and as such any action to remove him from office is not only illegal but unconstitutional. He further submits that only with regard to this Commission, the members are sought to be removed and they are forced to resign while in other Commissions such an action is not being taken. Mr. Ashok Reddy, learned Government Pleader counters the arguments stating that the office of the petitioner was to be co-terminus with the term of the Chairman and as the Chairman has tendered his resignation, automatically the petitioner also ceases and there is no right for the petitioner to contend that he should be continued as a member.

(3.) There is no Act under which the A.P. Minorities Commission is constituted. There are also no Rules with regard to the constitution of the same. The Commission is constituted by the State Government in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of Ind ia. There is also no particular composition as we find in Commissions constituted under a particular Act, for instance A.P. Backward Classes Commissions Act, 1993. The composition is flexible. It was four initially and then it swelled to six. Mr. Baig lays stress on G.O.Ms. No.91, dated 4-11-1994, but the same would have been operative but for G.O.Ms. No.92, dt.14-11-1994 which has been issued in modification of the orders contained in G.O.Ms. No.91, dated 4-11-1994. It is so specific and obvious. As such the petitioner cannot fall upon G.O.Ms. No.91, dated 4-11-1994 and his appointment or nomination whatever name called is only governed by G.O.Ms. No.92, dated 14-11-1994. As the Chairman has resigned and as the appointment of the members including thatof the petitioner was made co-terminus along with the Chairman, automatically the members also ceased to hold the office. That apart, the appointments of this nature are governed by Doctrineof Pleasure and Pleasure Doctrine knows no regulations or restrictions so as to import the theory of discrimination. After 45 years of the Constitution coming into force and the change in the strategies of the successive Governments led by the political parties, it is now well known that the persons affiliated and have allegiance to a particular parry are accommodated in the posts which are nominated posts. As such these pleasure posts cease the moment the Government change. It is also well known that there is no right to get appointment in pleasure posts and their right is alien to pleasure posts. If there is no right the continuance further, cannot arise, and I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed. Mr. Baig lays emphasis on the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel on the ground that the petitioner having been appointed under G.O.Ms. No.572, dated 28-10-1993 and again extended for one term for two more years under G.O.Ms. No.91, dated 4-11-1994 and that having been acted, the Government is bound by the Promissory Estoppel and the petitioner cannot be removed from the office of the membership of A.P. Minorities Commission I do not accept this contention for the reason that the Doctrineof Promissory Estoppel is not applicable. That apart in the instant case, G.O.Ms. No.91, dt.4-11-1994 which is strongly relied upon by Mr. Baig is also superseded and modified by later G.O.Ms. No.92, dated 14-11-1994 and this G.O.Ms. No.92 was accepted and acted upon by the petitioner without any protest or demur and that was never challenged; as such the contention with regard to Promissory Estoppel fails. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.