Back
2014 Supreme(Chh) 134
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Sunil Kumar Sinha & Inder Singh Uboweja, JJ
Nitin Sinha - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. (PIL) No. 42 of 2012
Decided on: 11.04.2014
Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent No.1/Union of India.
Advocate General with Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General, Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate and Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 2 to 5.
Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Mr. Animesh Verma, Mr. Anoop Jain and Mr. Soumya Rai, Advocates for respondent No.6.
Headnote:
All India Services Act, 1951 – Section 2 and 3 Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955 – Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 – Rule 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 – Petitioner-Nitin Sinha is a Bardana Trader filed this petition, styled as Public Interest Litigation for issuance of a writ of quo warranto to quash the contractual appointment respondent on post of Principal Secretary, Information Technology and Bio Technology and giving him additional charge of Principal Secretary, Energy; Principal Secretary, Chief Minister and Principal Secretary, Public Relation earlier appointment of the 6th respondent was terminated and he was appointed afresh on contractual basis on above upgraded posts and was given additional charge of Principal Secretary, Energy; Principal Secretary, Chief Minister and Principal Secretary, Public Relation writ petition was again amended making challenge to order appointment of respondent on contractual basis on said sum and substance writ petition (PIL) is now for quashment of order 6th respondent was appointed as Principal on contractual – Held, Contained in departmental recruitment rules, which require specialization experience and special qualification declared as contract appointment post by a general or special order in exceptionally special cases by State Government to maintain efficiency in public administration, except such post for which legal experience in judicial service field is required under any law or rule for time being in force eligibility criteria and qualifications for contractual appointment have been defined provides that in case of contract appointment of retired Government servants, in special cases, contract appointment may be given except such post for which legal experience in judicial service field is required under any law or rule for time being in basis of their special experience exemplary service record and evaluation of performance respondent, as we have already stated, was member of Indian Revenue Services, who resigned from the post held by him and after the resignation he was appointed post covered under the definition of a ‘Retired Government Servant eligible for appointment could not be shown as to how his contractual appointment was bad-in-law on account of violation of we find no force in the argument advanced on ground of violation of statutory rules – Appeal dismissed.
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.
(1) Petitioner-Nitin Sinha is a Bardana (gunny bag) Trader. He has filed this petition, styled as Public Interest Litigation (PIL), for issuance of a writ of quo warranto to quash the contractual appointment of 6th respondent on the post of Principal Secretary, Information Technology and Bio Technology (I.T. & B.T.) and giving him additional charge of Principal Secretary, Energy; Principal Secretary, Chief Minister and Principal Secretary, Public Relation.
(2) The 6th respondent was a member of Indian Revenue Services (Custom and Central Excise). He resigned from the said post and thereafter was appointed on the post of Secretary, I.T. & B.T. Government of Chhattisgarh on 27.1.2010 on contractual basis for a period of 3 years. The conditions of contractual appointment were notified vide order dated 21.4.2010 (Annexure-P/1). The instant PIL was filed on 22.8.2012 challenging the validity of the said order.
(3) Later on, during the pendency of the writ petition, on 16.1.2013 the 6th respondent was again appointed on contractual basis for a period of 2 years. Accordingly, the writ petition was amended and relief(s) relating to quashment of the second appointment order dated 16.1.2013 was added.
(4) On 17.12.2013 the post of Secretary I.T. & B.T. was upgraded to the post of Principal Secretary I.T. & B.T. and the earlier appointment of the 6th respondent was terminated and he was appointed afresh on contractual basis on the above upgraded posts and was given additional charge of Principal Secretary, Energy; Principal Secretary, Chief Minister and Principal Secretary, Public Relation. The writ petition was again amended making challenge to the order dated 17.12.2013 and the appointment of the 6th respondent on contractual basis on the said post. Thus in sum and substance, the writ petition (PIL) is now for quashment of the order dated 17.12.2013 by which the 6th respondent was appointed as Principal Secretary (I.T. & B.T.) on contractual basis for a period of 5 years and given additional charges as above.
(5) Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the 6th respondent does not fulfill the requisite qualification for being appointed on the post of Secretary, I.T. & B.T. and Secretary to the Chief Minister. His appointment is illegal for want of requisite and necessary qualifications. It was also contended that the 6th respondent is not a member of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Cadre, whereas, the post held by him are cadre post(s). Therefore, his appointment on the cadre post(s) is illegal and void. Reference was made to various provisions of All India Services Act, 1951 (for short the ‘Act 1951’); Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 (for short the ‘Rules 1954’) and Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955 (for short the ‘Regulations, 1955’). Over and above all, it was contended by Mr. Tamaskar that the appointment was made in violation of the relevant Rules framed for appointments on contractual basis.
(6) On the other hand, learned Advocate General firstly raised objection relating to maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in service matter. Thereafter he argued at length showing justification of the appointment. He referred to the decision of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware –Vs-State of Maharashtra and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 590.
(7) Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent, argued that the post held by the 6th respondent is not a cadre post; the 6th respondent fulfill the entire qualification to hold the post of Principal Secretary, I.T. & B.T. and the additional charge of other posts presently held by him. It is not a case of usurpation or violation of any statutory rules relating to qualification for appointment on contractual basis, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
(8) Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, learned Standing Counsel representing the Union
