Bombay HC - An Executive Order Can Be Revoked By A Subsequent Executive Order Issued By The Government

On June 20, the Bombay High Court declined to quash a decision made by the Eknath Shinde government to revoke appointments to the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

A division bench comprising Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale opined that modifications to social policies following a change in government is inherent to the democratic process and should not be deemed arbitrary or malicious solely based on this ground.

The bench further noted that the petitioners' appointments to the aforementioned positions were made through an executive order, which can be revoked by a subsequent executive order by the government.

The High Court rendered its decision in response to a plea filed by three pensioners who contested the annulment of their appointments as chairman and members of the State Commission.

Among the petitioners, one individual was appointed as the commission's chairman, while the other two were appointed as members, each serving a term of three years.

Advocate Satish Talekar, representing the petitioners, asserted in the filed plea that their appointments were nullified following the assumption of office by the Eknath Shinde government in June 2022. The plea further highlighted that the appointments of 197 presidents and non-official members, who were appointed to 29 project-level (planning review) committees, were also revoked. The petitioners alleged that these alterations were made to accommodate supporters and workers affiliated with the ruling government. Talekar argued that these decisions were made without providing a hearing or providing reasons, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf, representing the State, presented arguments against the plea and supported the government's decision.

Dr. Saraf contended that the positions in question were not civil posts, and the members of the commission served at the government's discretion.

The bench concurred with Dr. Saraf's submission, affirming that the petitioners' nominations were solely based on the government's discretion, without following any selection process or inviting applications from the general public.

The Court further emphasized that the petitioners' appointments were made through an executive order, which can be revoked by a subsequent executive order issued by the government.