The court upheld the appointment of respondent No.3 on a contractual basis under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012, emphasizing the government's power to relax the rules in larger public interest.

JUDGMENT

Goutam Bhaduri, J. - Heard.

2. By way of the present petition, the writ of quo warranto is prayed for challenging the appointment of respondent No.3 namely Alok Shukla made on:-

(i) 30.05.2020 whereby the respondent No.3 was appointed on contract basis as Principal Secretary, Parilamentary Affairs, State of Chhattisgarh and has been given the additional charge of Principal Secretary, School Education Department, State of Chhattisgarh vide Annexure P-1.

(ii) 01.06.2020 whereby the respondent No.3 has been given the additional charge of President, Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, President Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board and the Principal Secretary, Skill Development, Technical Education and Employment Department vide Annexure P-2.

3. The facts are, after retirement of respondent No.3, he has been appointed on contract basis by State. The appointment is made by the respondents/State in exercise of powers under Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules, 2012''). The respondent No.3 was an officer of Indian Administrative Services and held the different posts in the Government. It is contended that while respondent No.3 was posted as Chairman, Civil Supplies Corporation committed mass irregularities for which after a raid was conducted and an offence bearing crime No.9/2015 was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau of the Economic Offence Wing and initially charge-sheet was filed against few accused thereafter additional charge-sheet was filed against the respondent No.3 and another on 05.12.2018. It is further contended that since the respondent No.3 was not appearing before the trial Court after filing of the charge-sheet in the year 2018, the First Additional Sessions Judge, District Raipur had issued the arrest warrant against the respondent No.3. Subsequently, the respondent No.3 was granted the anticipatory bail on 16.10.2019 in M.Cr.C.(A) No.788 of 2019.

4. It is further contended that after formation of the new government, the steps were taken to suspend the respondent No.3 and all of sudden the State Government instead of acting against respondent No.3, provided him patronage and appointed him to the various important posts. It is further contended that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate is also being conducted against the respondent No.3.

5. It is further contended that the State of Chhattisgarh notified the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules, 2012'') by its notification on 31.12.2012 which have been amended from time to time and the last Rules which stand amended uptill 2019 (filed as Annexure P-7) purport that Rules 4 & 5 of the Rules, 2012 deal with the appointment to be made on the contract. It is further contended that Section 9 of the Rules, 2012 contemplates the disqualification for contractual appointment and purports, if any departmental enquiry/prosecution is pending against him person would be disqualified to be appointed. It is further pleaded that despite the fact that the prosecution is pending against respondent No.3, he has been appointed on the contract basis against the Rules, 2012.

6. The State on the other hand in its reply have stated that the State Government being subjectively satisfied about the suitability and the eligibility of the respondent No.3 for contractual appointment to the post of Principal Secretary has provided the appointment. State further contended that the State Government has exercised its discretion to appoint respondent No.3 by exercising the power of relaxation conferred to the State Government under Rule 17 of the Rules, 2012. It is further stated that the State Government has not committed any illegality in exercise of relaxation of the rule to appoint respondent No.3 as the rule itself empowers the State to do so. It is further contended that the vires of the legality of Rule 17 of the Rules, 2012 is n