PRAMOD PUJARI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order, Annexure P-1, dated 23rd July, 2005 passed by the State Government removing the petitioners from the post of President, jan Bhagidari Samiti and instead appointing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their place, petitioners have filed this petition.

(2.) A notification was issued by the State Government on 30th september, 1996 (Annexure P-2) with the aim and object of providing a Scheme for the management of certain educational institutions functioning in the State. By the said Scheme, a 'jan Bhagidari Samiti' was proposed to be established for development of educational institutions and to guide the institutes in its proper functioning. It was stipulated in the scheme that for every college, a Samiti known as the "jan Bhagidari Samiti" (hereinafter referred to as 'the Samiti')shall be constituted. The said constituted Samiti shall be registered as a society appointments of the petitioners are not in relation to any office of profit but even in case of such appointments action for terminating the tenure of appointment before the period is over can be taken only on relevant consideration and for reasons to be disclosed. It is argued that in the present case, the tenure of the petitioners have been brought to an end without disclosing any reason and as the petitioners had a right to continue for three years, terminating their tenure in such a manner amounts to arbitrary exercise of powers, and therefore, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus commencing the respondents to continue the petitioners to hold the post for which they have been appointed till the end of the tenure. In support thereof he has placed reliance on a judgments rendered by this Court in the. case of Rajendra Tiwari alias Raju Vs. State of M. P. and others, 2005 (3) M. P. H. T. 69 = 2005 (1) MPLJ 204 and Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of M. P. and others, 2005 (3) M. P. H. T. 84 and a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sanghathan Vs. State of M. P. and others, 1994 JLJ 693.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have refuted the aforesaid and it is stated by the respondents that the appointments in question does not confer any legal right on the petitioners. The appointment is at the pleasure of the Government and as no statutory right is available to the petitioners, termination of their appointments without disclosing any reason cannot be called in question and the same cannot be subjected to judicial review in a petition under Article 226 of the constitution. Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, learned Counsel representing the respondent No. 2 argued that the appointment is not to any post of the State governments, it does not carry any remuneration, and therefore, the termination of such an appointment which is un-controlled by any statutory provision and the termination of which does not involve any civil consequenee cannot be subject matter of judicial review unless and until arbitrariness and malafides are established in the matter. Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi emphasised that the appointment of the petitioners are at the pleasure of the Government and if the government chooses to bring about an end to their tenure and terminates them, the respondents argued that no legal right or Constitutional right of the petitioners was violated by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and no interference into the matter is called for.