IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.329 of 2006 BIJAY KUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS SON OF SRI MOHAN SINGH, RESIDDNT OF B-151, BUDHA COLONY, P.S. BUDHA COLONY, PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. COMMISSIOENR CUM SECRETARY, LABOUR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. UNDER SECRETARY, LABOUR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. DIRECTOR GENERAL, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, DIRECTOREATE, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. For the petitioner : M/s. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate, Bipin Bihari Singh, Rakesh Ranjan, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Binay Kumar, AC to GP-13, For Union : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, ASG. ----------- 08. 27.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State, who represent respondent nos.2 to 4 and the counsel for Union of India, who represent respondent no.5. 2. Petitioner was appointed Chairman of the State Employment Committee(hereinafter referred to as the Committee) under notification of the State Government bearing no.148 dated 9.4.2002, Anneuxre-1 for a term of three years. Later, the notification no.148 dated 9.4.2002 was modified by the State Government vide notification no.251 dated 28.8.2004, Annexure-2, whereunder the term of appointment of the petitioner was extended to five years. He is aggrieved by the notification of the Government bearing memo no.02 dated 2.1.2006, Annexure-3, whereunder the earlier two notification dated 9.4.2002, 28.8.2004, Annexures-1 and 2 have been cancelled. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner with reference to the contents of reply to the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner that appointment of the petitioner as Chairman of the Committee was made - 2 - with the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Minister, which is evident from the note sheet contained in Annexures-6, 7 of the reply to the counter affidavit. While petitioner served as Chairman of the Committee the State Government was changed by the Government of National Democratic Alliance and Sri Falguni Prasad Yadav, Member of the Legislative Assembly, Chakai Constituency under representation dated 17.12.2005, Annexure-4 to the reply to the counter affidavit invited the attention of the Hon’ble Minister, Labour Employment and Training Department of the State Government that petitioner, who is member of Congress Party is still allowed to serve as Chairman of the Committee and request was made to dissolve the Committee. In the light of the request of Sri Falguni Prasad Yadav, the matter was examined by the Labour, Employment and Training Department of the Government and with the approval of the Hon’ble Minister, Labour Employment and Training Department notification bearing memo no.02 dated 2.1.2006 Annexure-3 was issued cancelling the earlier two notification(s) bearing nos.148, 251 dated 9.4.2002, 28.8.2004, Annexures-1, 2. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that notification bearing memo no.02 dated 2.1.2006, Annexure-3 has been issued with the approval of the Hon’ble Minister, Labour Employment and Training Department of the State Government but thereunder the earlier notification nos.148, 251 dated 9.4.2002, 28.8.2004 issued with the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Minister has been cancelled. It is submitted that notification of the State Government issued with the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Minister ought to have been cancelled - 3 - after obtaining the approval of Hon’ble Chief Minister in the matter. 5. Counsel for the State accepts the position that notifications dated 9.4.2002, 28.8.2004 was issued with the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Minister but has been cancelled under notification dated 2.1.2006 without obtaining the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Minister. He, however submits that in terms of the provision of Article-310 of the Constitution of India, the appointment of the petitioner as Chairman of the Committee was subject to the pleasure doctrine enshrined in Article 310 of the constitution and terminable at the will of the Government. 6. State counsel may be right in submitting that the pleasure appointing the petitioner as Chairman of the Committee could have been withdrawn by the State Government at its discretion but such withdrawal ought to have been made observing the formalities required under Sub-Clause(2) of Article 310 with the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Minister with whose approval petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Committee initially for three years and thereafter his term was extended to five years vide notification dated 9.4.2002 and 28.8.2004 respectively. As the notification cancelling the appointment of the petitioner dated 2.1.2006, Annexure-3 has been issued without the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Minister, the same is quashed. 7. The writ application is allowed. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)