- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THESE review petitions are preferred by the State of Jharkhand, the respondent in the writ petitions being WPC No. 1181/2013 and WPC 1280/2013 which were decided by the common judgment dated 28th June 2013. Before proceeding to discuss the grounds seeking review, as advanced by the review petitioner, it would be appropriate to notice what was under challenge in the writ petitions. The writ petitioners / respondents herein, had assailed the common impugned notification dated 16th February 2013 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Sports, Art, Culture and Youth Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, whereby their services as Chairman and Member of the Jharkhand State Youth Commission were terminated in exercise of powers under Rule 4(vi) of the Jharkhand State Youth Commission Rules, 2012.
(3.) THE common grounds for assailing the impugned notification raised on behalf of the writ petitioners were that as per the Rules of 2012, Commission has the tenure of three years and the Chairman / Member should be within the maximum age of 40 years. According to the writ petitioners, they were appointed as Chairman and Member of the Jharkhand State Youth Commission by notification contained at Memo No. 21 dated 8th January 2013 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary of the same Department, under the orders of His Excellency The Governor of Jharkhand in exercise of powers under Rule 3 of 2012 Rules. The writ petitioners had assailed the impugned action inter -alia on the grounds that the removal of the petitioners as Chairman / Member of the Commission invoking Rule 4(vi) of the 2012 Rules, was arbitrary, without any notice and in purported exercise of Doctrine of Pleasure by the respondent State. It was their contention that Rule 4(v) lays down condition which entails disqualification for removal from the post of Chairman or Member of the said Commission. Proviso to the aforesaid Rules stipulates opportunity of hearing before any action is taken. Writ petitioners had argued that the Doctrine of Pleasure as conceived under the Constitution of India and as referred to in Part - XIV of Chapter -I of the Constitution of India relating to service under the Union and the State, is not an unqualified power; rather are subject to restriction imposed by the Constitution and to be read into the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.;