JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of impugned Notification dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure P3), vide which the Department of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of Himachal Pradesh has withdrawn the nomination of NonOfficial Members of Himachal Pradesh State Commission for Backward Classes including the petitioner, in supersession of earlier Notification of the Department of even number dated 28.11.2016 with immediate effect. 2. Vide Notification dated 28.11.2016, which stands withdrawn vide impugned Notification dated 10th April, 2018, the petitioner was renominated as a NonOfficial Member of the Himachal Pradesh State Commission for Backward Classes for a term of three years. The grievance of the petitioner is that once the respondentDepartment had nominated him for another term of three years, then said renomination could not have been withdrawn, as has been done vide impugned Notification. 3. On the other hand, the stand of the State is that as the NonOfficial Members, including the petitioner of the Commission in issue were renominated to the Commission by way of an administrative decision on 18.11.2016, they have no right to continue and the renomination was rightly withdrawn on 10.04.2018 and in fact the petitioner has gone the way he had come. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that nomination or renomination of the petitioner as a Member of the Commission was not in response to any advertisement issued by the Commission to fill up the office. Thus, both nomination as also renomination of the petitioner to the office in issue was at the pleasure of the Government. Besides this, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a recent judgment of this Bench in CWP No. 1135 of 2018, titled as Amit Nanda Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 22.11.2018. In the said judgment, this Court has categorically held that a person/appointee, who came to be appointed with out following any selection process, neither can claim that he/she be heard before he/she is removed, nor a person who is appointed at the pleasure of the Government and who came to be removed by the same pleasure, can claim that the Order of removal has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice. It has also been held that it is not necessary that such an appointee should continue for the entire period and he can be removed at any time by exercising the power of ''doctrine of pleasure''. 6. In the light of the aforesaid, the petitioner has no right to question the Notification dated 10th April, 2018, which has been issued by the State while exercising the ''doctrine of pleasure'', vide which the renomination of the petitioner has been withdrawn. The petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit. Miscellaneous application, if any, also stand disposed of.