JHARKHAND RABTA HAJ COMMITTEE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the notification No. 2082 dated 16.09.2011 (Annexure-5) whereby the Jharkhand Haj Committee was constituted under Section 18 of the Haj Committee Act, 2002 and also challenged the notification dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure-6) by which the respondent No. 5 has been appointed as Chairperson of the Jharkhand State Haj Committee.

(2.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 was holding the post of Member of the Haj Committee since 03.07.2001, even before coming into force the Act of 2002. As per Section 48 of the Act of 2002, any employee or officer of any existing committee, obviously, which was in existence prior to coining in to force the Act of 2002, was entitled to continue on such post under the Act of 2002 subject to conditions mentioned in Section 48 with other conditions mentioned in the proviso to that Section. In view of the above provision of Section 48 only, the respondent No. 5 became the Member of the newly constituted Haj Committee which was constituted in the year 2008 vide notification dated 9th May, 2008 and then the respondent No. 5 was made Chairperson of the Haj Committee vide notification dated 23rd June, 2008, copy of which notification is placed on record as Annexure-4. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of Sub Section 2 of Section 22 even a Member can hold the post of "Member" for three years and maximum for two terms. Since the respondent No. 5 was admittedly appointed as Member on 03.07.2001 then he could hove held the post for two terms of three years each only. The respondent No. 5 member of Haj Committee since 2001 could have held the post only up to the year 2001 to 2007. In view of the above reasons, the respondent No. 5 could not have been appointed as Member in the newly constituted Haj Committee as constituted by Annexure-5 dated 16.09.2011. Once it is held that respondent No. 5 could not have been appointed as Member, then obviously he was not eligible to hold the post of Chairperson, as the Chairperson can be from amongst the members of the Committee only.

(3.) Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel Sri Rajiv Ranjan appearing for the respondent No. 5 submitted that the petition is misconceived in as much as the Act of 2002 came into force only with effect from 11.06.2002 and the respondent No. 5 was appointed as Member of the State Haj Committee by the State Government for the first time by notification dated 09.05.2008 issued under Section 18 of the Act of 2002. Before the Act of 2002, there was no Act under which any Haj Committee was constituted in the State of Jharkhand. It is submitted that notification dated 03.07.2001 is an administrative order only and, therefore, that appointment is absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of counting of the maximum period which can be held by the Member who is appointed under the Haj Committee Act, 2002. It is also submitted that Section 48 applies to the employees and officers appointed under the Haj Committee Act, 2002 and it has no application to the Members and Chairperson. In view of the above reasons, the respondent No. 5 who was appointed as Member by notification dated 09.05.2008 issued under Section 18 of the Haj Committee Act, 2002 became Member for the first time from 09.05.2008. As per the scheme of the Act of 2002, one can continue to hold the post of Chairperson up to the period of three years and thereafter, for further three years and because of this reason the respondent No. 5's appointment as Member is legal and valid. It is also submitted that the interpretation of Section 22(2) as given by the petitioner cannot be accepted and according to respondents, an outgoing Member can have opportunity to be denominated by the State in the Committee for two more terms.