Dalveer Bhandari, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner who is an employee of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, (hereinafter to be REFERRED TO as D. E. S. U.) and also the General Secretary of the Delhi Electricity Workers Union has filed this petition for issuance of a writ of quo warranto, challenging the appointment of respondent no. 2 R. K. Narayanan, to the post of General Manager, D. E. S. U. The appointment of respondent no. 2 was approved vide Order dated 7. 9. 1995 and a subsequent order dated 22. 9. 1995, containing the terms and conditions of the appointment.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent no. 2 primarily on two grounds. The main ground on which the appointment has been assailed is that according to Section 96 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, no appointment to any category A post within the meaning of clause (i) of sub-section (8) of Section 90 shall be made except after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Commission ). The post of the General Manager, D. E. S. U. falls in that category and according to the petitioner, it was imperative for the respondent to have obtained the approval of the Commission before making the appointment. In other words, any appointment without approval is invalid and bad in law. Admittedly, no approval has been taken from the Commission before appointing respondent no. 2 to the post of General Manager, D. E. S. U.

( 3 ) THE other ground on which the appointment of respondent no. 2 has been challenged is that the appointment is in clear contravention of recruitment rules and regulations. As per the recruitment rules, the appointment to the post of General Manager, D. E. S. U. can be made either by transfer or on deputation from the Government Departments. He must either be a member of the Indian Administrative Service (I. A. S.) and/or a member of the Central or State Engineering Services Class-1, or suitable officer holding the post of analogous status in the State. Respondent no. 2 is neither on transfer nor on deputation from any government department. The appointment has primarily been assailed on the aforesaid two grounds.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has also mentioned that otherwise also there was no propriety in appointing respondent no. 2 to this post because respondent no. 2 had earlier worked as Tribunal, Central Electricity, Government of India, w. e. f. 1987 to 1990. During the period as Tribunal of the Central Electricity Authority, it has come to the notice of the petitioner that respondent no. 2 has not only mismanaged the office of the said authority, but has committed various financial irregularities and has taken illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs. It is also alleged that respondent no. 2 has been named in various other controversies and does not enjoy a good public image. Respondent no. 2 is also involved in the jain Hawala case . The criminal case for receiving illegal gratification and bribe by respondent no. 2, is pending in the court of Shri V. B. Gupta, Special Judge, Delhi.

( 5 ) THIS writ petition was filed on 2nd November, 1995. This court issued show cause notice on 6th November, 1995 and in pursuance of the court notice, a counter-affidavit has also been filed separately both on behalf of re- spondent no. 1, M. C. D. and by respondent no. 2. On 9th February, 1996, the court directed that the matter be listed for final disposal on 12th March, 1996. Because of this earlier court order, this matter has been heard at the admission stage. At the threshold, we would like to examine whether the appointment of respondent no. 2 is in contravention of Section 96 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Section 96 of the Act reads as under: -.

"96. Consultation with the Union Public Service Commission.- No appointment to any category A post within the meaning of clause (1) of sub-section (8) of section 90 shall be made except after consultation with the Commission:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document