ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Initially, the writ petitioner had filed this petition calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 09.03.2019 (Annexure P/1) by which the services of the respondent No. 9 has been absorbed on the post of Associate Professor (Ophthalmology) in accordance with sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Shiksha (Rajpatrit) Tatha Sewa Bharti Niyam, 2013 (for short, the Rules of 2013) and further claimed a relief that appropriate action be taken against the erring officers including the respondent No. 8, who are instrumental in appointing the respondent No. 9 on the post of Associate Professor.

2. On 13.01.2021, the question with regard to maintainability of the writ petition was raised on the ground that in a service matter, PIL is not maintainable pursuant to which the petitioner filed an application for amendment in the writ petition which was ultimately allowed on 02.07.2021. Accordingly, the petitioner now claims that appropriate writ in nature of quo warranto be issued ousting the respondent No. 9 from the post of Associate Professor of (Ophthalmology).

3. Return has been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 7/State on 16.11.2021 stating that in the service matter, PIL is not maintainable and it was also pleaded that the pre-requisite for issuance of writ of quo warranto is not fulfilled and present petition is bad and liable to be dismissed and furthermore, it has also been pleaded that as per the Rules of 2013, the State Government has been conferred with the power to relax any of the provisions of the said Rules by virtue of Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 2013, and relaxing the said rules, respondent No. 9 has been absorbed on the post of Associate Professor (Ophthalmology) and the said Rules have not been questioned and as such, the instant petition in the shape of PIL which has subsequently been converted into a writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

4. The respondent No. 9 has also filed her return on 08.12.2021 stating amongst others, that there is no public interest involved in this petition and it is not aimed for redressal of genuine public harm or injury. The petitioner has no locus to challenge the appointment/absorption of the petitioner on the post of Associate Professor as the respondent No. 9 fulfills all the eligibility criteria required for appointment on the said post.

Submissions

5. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appointment of respondent No. 9 is not in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 2013. The respondent No. 9 could not have been absorbed on the post of Associate Professor without issuing any advertisement and without following the due process of law, as such, it is a fit case where a writ of quo warranto be issued against the respondent No. 9 ousting her from the post of Associate Professor (Ophthalmology).

6. Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 7 as well as Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 9 would submit that in service matter, PIL is not maintainable. In support of their contention, they have relied upon decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. They would further submit that for seeking a writ of quo warranto, a person whose appointment is challenged must not have the eligibility to hold the post and only that aspect can be looked into, but the petitioner has not made any pleading that the respondent No. 9 was not eligible to be appointed on the post of Associate Professor, whereas, she was having the eligibility for holding the said post. She has rightly been absorbed/appointed on the post of Associate Professor (Ophthalmology). As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions ma