LAWS(HPH)-2003-12-17

MALVIKA PATHANIA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Decided On December 02, 2003
MALVIKA PATHANIA Appellant
V/S
State Of H P And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge n this petition is Notification No. WLF-F(2)-2/88-III dated 6th August, 2001, whereby in purported exercise of the statutory power vesting under Rule 4(3)(a) of H.P. State Commission for Women (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 1999 ("1999 Rules" for short), the Petitioner has been removed from the office of Chairperson of H.P. State Commission for Women (Commission, for short) and in her place, in purported exercise of power vesting in the State Government under Section 4(1) of H.P. State Commission for Women Act, 1996 ("Act" for Short) and Rule 4(2) of 1999 Rules, Respondent No. 3 has been appointed as the Chairperson of the Commission for a period of three years with immediate effect, i.e., with effect from the date of issue of aforesaid Notification on, 6th August, 2003.

(2.) On 27th June, 2001 the Petitioner was appointed as Chairperson of the Commission with effect from that date itself, for a period of one year on the terms and conditions as have been specified in 1999 Rules. On 18th June, 2002, the period of appointment of the Petitioner as Chairperson of the Commission was extended upto 26th June, 2004, again on the terms and conditions as have been specified in 1999 Rules. For facility of reference, both the aforesaid Notifications, one dated 27th June, 2001 and the other of 18th June, 2002, the first appointing the Petitioner originally as Chairperson of the Commission for a period of one year and the second extending her period as Chairperson until 26th June, 2004 are reproduced hereunder and read thus:

(3.) 1996 Act was enacted by the Himachal Pradesh State Legislature with a view to constitute a State Commission for Women and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The preamble of the Act states that whereas it was expedient to provide for the constitution of the Commission with the aim of furthering the fundamental rights available and guaranteed to women and with respect to women and to give effect to the directive principles of State Policy as enshrined under Articles 38, 39, 39A and 42 of the Constitution and to improve the status and dignity of women in the society etc. etc., it was considered necessary to constitute a State Commission for Women. Section 3 of the Act stipulated the constitution of the Commission to exercise the powers conferred under the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 3, inter alia, provided for the composition of the Commission, which apart from some Members (with which we are not concerned in this case), the Commission was to consist of a Chairperson, who would be an eminent woman committed to the cause of women. Section 4(1) with which we are directly concerned in this case, provides for the appointment of a Chairperson and non-official member and stipulates that they shall hold office for such period not exceeding three years, as may be specified by the State Government. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 lays down that the Chairperson or member of the Commission may be removed from office if one of the grounds as specified in clauses (a) to (f) were in existence. Proviso to Sub-section (3) slates that no person shall be removed under Sub-section (3) until she has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Since Section 4 would fall for our consideration, it is advantageous to reproduce the same: