- (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the Petitioner to seek the following reliefs : (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing Notification issued vide Memo No. 626 dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure -7) whereby and whereunder Jharkhand State Minority Commission has been constituted under Section 4(2) of the Jharkhand State Minority Commission Act, 2001, in view of the fact that in the said reconstituted Commission, the minority community belonging to "Sikhs" has not been given adequate representation as no member of Sikh community has been made Vice Chairman of the said Jharkhand State Minority Commission. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to appoint one member of Sikh Community as Vice Chairman of the Jharkhand State Minority Commission, especially in view of the fact that from the very beginning itself one member of Sikh Community had always been given representation in the Jharkhand State Minority Commission on the post of Vice Chairman and also in view of the fact that the minority community of Sikhs in the State of Jharkhand constitutes an approximate population of 5 lakhs and above and due to their inadequate representation in the Jharkhand State Minority Commission, they are immensely suffering. (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction, including the Writ of Certiorari, for quashing the appointment of Respondent No. 4 - Manzoor Ahmad Ansari, who has been appointed on the post of Vice Chairman of Jharkhand State Minority Commission, especially in view of the fact that the said appointment is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and no due procedure of law has been followed by the Respondents while appointing said Respondent No. 4. (iv) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction directing the Respondents not to illegally and arbitrarily discriminate one minority community of the State of Jharkhand with that of the other minority communities giving them more representation in the Jharkhand State Minority Commission than that of the minority community of Sikh.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner took pains to establish that there is an established practice to appoint Sikh Community Member as Vice Chairman of the Minority Commission constituted under the Minority Commission Act in the Jharkhand State. From the facts, we find that the Minority Commission, as constituted in the year 2004 and 2008, no Sikh gentleman has been appointed as Vice Chairman. In view of that background, it cannot be a legitimate argument or contention that this is a practice in this State. In any case, a practice in a State, which is in existence only for ten years, cannot be said to be an established practice. It may further be noticed that when there is a statute governing the formation of a commission then the practice would be hardly of any consequence because the legislative mandate has to be looked into.
(3.) THE other argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Sikh Community has a legitimate expectation to get appointed to see that any member of their community is appointed as Vice Chairman. The aforementioned legitimate expectation was sought to be invoked by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the line of the following decisions of the Supreme Court : i. : (2005) 6 S.C.C. 690 (Bal Patil and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.) ii. : 1991 Supp. (1), S.C.C. 600 (Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Ors.) iii. : (2009) 1 S.C.C. 180 (Sethi Auto Service Station and Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.) iv. : (2006) 8 S.C.C. 381 (Ram Pravesh Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.).;