Judgment : In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent dated 14.7.2006 informing him the order of the Government made in G.O. Rt. No. 102 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (ADW 3) Department dated 7.7.2006 wherein certain amendments were issued to G.O. Ms. No. 155 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 21.10.1994. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner was removed from the State Level Monitoring Committee and in his place, the third respondent was appointed as non-official member for a period of three years, as the State Level Monitoring Committee was constituted for the purpose of the National Scheme for Liberation and Rehabilitation of Scavengers and their dependents (for short, ‘NSLRS‘) 2. Accordingto the petitioner, he is a social worker and he was the General Secretary of Subamathy Groups Nala Sangam and he has been working for the rehabilitation of scavengers and their dependents and he has also formed 90 groups and that he has been fighting for the welfare of the downtrodden community. In order to recognise his work, he was nominated as a non-official member of the State Level Monitoring Committee under the NSLRS vide letter dated 3.9.2004. Under the said order, it was informed that the said order came to be passed pursuant to the decision of the first respondent found in G.O. Ms. No. 155 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 21.10.1994 wherein the direction of the Government of India to frame a scheme for the liberation and rehabilitation of scavengers and their dependents was issued. For this purpose, the Government of India released Rs. 5.8 Crores as the central assistance and the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation (for short, ‘TADCO‘) has been appointed as agency for implementation of the said scheme. The Government of India, while giving the central assistance, also directed constitution of a State Level Monitoring Committee. Initially, the first respondent constituted the State Level Monitoring Committee comprising of only Government Officials and there was no representation of any Non-Government Official working in that area. Then the Government of India pointed out that in order to give true effect to the said scheme, it should contain non-officials from the scavengers community. Hence, an amendment letter dated 3.9.2004 was issued by the first respondent by including two Non-Government Officials including the writ petitioner. Then the Government of India pointed out that in order to give true effect to the said scheme, it should contain non-officials from the scavengers community. Hence, an amendment letter dated 3.9.2004 was issued by the first respondent by including two Non-Government Officials including the writ petitioner. As the period of their tenure is not fixed by the said order, a further order in G.O.D. No. 84 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 19.6.2005 was issued wherein it was informed that the Non-Official members will function for a period of three years from the date of appointment, viz., 3.9.2004. Accordingly, the petitioners‘ term will come to an end on 2.9.2007 as per the Government Order and he has been attending all the committee meetings convened from the said date. 3. The purpose of the State Level Monitoring Committee has been mentioned in G.O. Ms. No. 155, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 21.10.1994 and paragraph 5 of the said G.O. reads as follows: “ 5. The State Level Monitoring Committee will meet once in three months review the progress of achievements made by the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar - Housing and Development Corporation and other implementing departments and suggest remedial measures to the problems/bottlenecks confronted in the implementation of the scheme. This Committee will also evaluate the action taken by the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation in providing a single window approach in the implementation of the scheme. The District Level Committee will be responsible for overall implementation and monitoring of the scheme in the district. The district Manager of the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation will be responsible Committee once in a month about the progress made under the scheme. 4. According to the petitioner, he has been working under the said scheme and giving his useful suggestions. However, without notice to the petitioner and without having regard to the nature of the scheme and the relevant statutory enactment, the first respondent issued G.O. Ms. No. 102 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (ADW 8) Department dated 7.7.2006 with an amendment replacing the petitioner with that of the third respondent. This G.O. Came to be communicated by the second respondent, who is the implementing agency by the impugned order dated 14.7.2006. No. 102 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (ADW 8) Department dated 7.7.2006 with an amendment replacing the petitioner with that of the third respondent. This G.O. Came to be communicated by the second respondent, who is the implementing agency by the impugned order dated 14.7.2006. In none of these letters, the petitioner was informed about the termination of his tenure and no communication was addressed to him directly. Only when the petitioner came to know that certain wall posters are appearing in the city published by the third respondent thanking the Honourable Chief Minister for making the said appointment, he wrote a letter to the respondents 4.7.2006 expressing his shock and also requested for his intervention. Since he did not get any reply, the present petition has been filed. 5. Notice was ordered to the respondents. On behalf of the first respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed stating that by the policy note issued by the Central Government, the State can change the composition of the aforesaid‘ committee as per local conditions. In the same breath, it has been stated that pursuant to the direction of the Central Government, in terms of the very same policy, the Government included the non-official members and in paragraphs 8 to 10, it is stated as follows: “ 8. I submit that the-decision to include and appoint Non-Official members in the State level monitoring Committee is the policy decision of the Government and there is no contract of employment between the Non-Official members and the Government. 9. The Non-Official members are not given any monthly wages or salary and as such there is no contract between the Non-official members and the Government. The inclusion of the Non-Official member is purely a policy decision of the Government and it does not confer any right for inclusion as a member in the Committee. 10. The powers of the Government for the inclusion of a person as a Non-official member in the Committee and making amendment on the composition of the existing committee cannot be questioned as there is no contract of employment and is due to the policy of the Government from time to time.” They have also listed out as to how many times, the Government has appointed non-official members. 6. I have heard the arguments of Mr. S. Mazhaimeni Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. 6. I have heard the arguments of Mr. S. Mazhaimeni Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. C.K. Vishnupriya, learned Government Advocate representing the first respondent and have perused the records. 7. In view of the stand taken by the parties, it is necessary to decide the legality of the contentions raised by both the parties. The Parliament, by Central Act 46 of 1993, known as the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993, (for short, ‘the Act‘) enacted a legislation in terms of Article 47 of the Constitution of India and it came into force on 5.6.1993. It was made applicable to in respect of several other States, on a resolution passed by such of those States under Article 252(1) of the Constitution of India. Under Section 13, while the Constitution of Committees appointed under the Act have been prescribed, Section 13(4) deals with the power of the State Government by notification to constitute committees. Sections 13(4), 5 and 6 of the Act read as follows: “(4) The State Government may, by notification, constitute (a) one or more State Co-ordination Committees for co-ordinating and monitoring of the programmes for the construction of water-seal latrines in the State and rehabilitation of the persons who were engaged in or employed for as manual scavengers in any respect of which a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3 has been issued; (b) such other committees for such purpose of the Act and with such names as the State Government may deem fit. (5) The composition of the committees constituted by the State Government the powers and functions thereof, the terms and conditions of the members of such committees and other matters connected therewith shall be such as the State Government may prescribe. (6) The members of the committees under sub-section (4) shall be paid such fees and allowances for attending the meetings as may be prescribed.” 8. The objects and reasons for making the enactment is mentioned as follows: “Despite the fact that concerned efforts have been made to eliminate the dehumanising practice of employing persons for carrying human excreta on- their heads or like wise, the practice still persists in certain parts of the country. It is, therefore, proposed to prohibit the said practice by making the employment or engagement of manual scavengers a punishable offence. It is, therefore, proposed to prohibit the said practice by making the employment or engagement of manual scavengers a punishable offence. Further, a massive centrally sponsored programme is under implementation for conversion of dry latrines into, and construction of, new water-seal latrines in buildings. On completion of the programme in a State, it has to declare itself as a manual scavenger free State. In order to supplement the existing efforts for complete elimination of dry latrines and to ensure the construction of rater-seal latrines in all buildings, it is also proposed to make constructions or maintenance of dry latrines as a punishable offence. 2. It is also felt that the existing municipal laws are not stringent enough to eliminate the practices. However, as the subject-matter “manual scavenging”, in pith and substance, falls under the State List, suitable uniform legislation for the whole of India could not be made without the necessary resolutions being passed by the various State legislators. The legislatures of the State of Goa, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Tripura and West Bengal have passed by necessary resolutions in pursuance of Clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution empowering Parliament to undertake the legislation for prohibiting employment of manual scavengers as well as construction or continuance of dry latrines and for the regulation of construction and maintenance of water-seal latrines and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” 9. It is pursuant to this, the Government of India evolved Central assistance to States, who are willing to implement the scheme, and assistance have been rendered by the Ministry of Social Welfare, Government of India. Therefore, the second respondent was appointed only as an implementing agency and the entire funding is done by the Central Government. Though the State Government had not exercised power under Section 252(1) of the Constitution of India to extend the Act directly to the State of Tamil Nadu, they had participated in the central assistance pursuant to the said Act and as can be seen from the original G.O., a sum of Rs. 5.8 Crores has been given and under the direction of the Central Government, the Committee has been constituted. When the first respondent has formed a Committee comprising of only bureaucrats, non-officials were also included by the direction of the Central Government. 5.8 Crores has been given and under the direction of the Central Government, the Committee has been constituted. When the first respondent has formed a Committee comprising of only bureaucrats, non-officials were also included by the direction of the Central Government. When the Scheme is sponsored by the Central Government pursuant to the policy note and the entire assistance comes from the Central Government, it is not open to the first respondent to vary the terms and conditions issued pursuant to the said scheme. Further, it is the admission of the first respondent that they themselves constituted the committee pursuant to the said direction by the Central Government. It is the first respondent, who, by G.O. (D) No. 84 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (ADW-S) Department dated 9.6.2005, has issued an order that the members appointed under the category of non-official members will continue for a period of three years from 3.9.2004. If that is the case, it is open to the first respondent to edge out members, who are appointed pursuant to the said order, even before the completion of the said tenure. The power exercised by the Government in terms of the General Clauses Act, viz., the power to act positively, will include power to act negatively, will not apply to this case as contended by the learned Government Advocate. Even the reasons stated in the counter affidavit that it is an honorary post and, therefore, tenure can be curtailed, does not merit any acceptance. 10. In this context, it is necessary to take note of the submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioner, viz., even if there is change of Government, there will not be change of composition of the committee, especially when the tenure of the non-official members of the committee has not come to an end. Further, when once the composition of the Committee is laid down pursuant to Section 13(4) of the Act, then the State Government, in the absence of any further power, viz., regarding removal of members by prescribing proper guidelines, cannot alter the tenure of the members of the Committee. 11. In view of the above said facts, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the amendment introduced by G.O. Rt. 11. In view of the above said facts, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the amendment introduced by G.O. Rt. No. 102 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (ADW 8) Department dated 7.7.2006 insofar as replacing the petitioner with that of the third respondent and it is further declared that the writ petitioner is entitled to continue in the office of as non-official member till 2.9.2007. 12. In the light of the above, the writ petition shall stand allowed. The parties are allowed to bear their respective costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions will stand closed.