Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Pratik Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S). No. 2686 of 2020
Decided On : 14-12-2021
quo warranto - Appointment of Chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board - Air Act - [Section 4 of Air Act] - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking the removal of respondent No. 5 from the post of Chairman, JSPCB, as the appointment was a stop gap arrangement and the State had already framed rules and initiated the process for the regular appointment of the Chairman, JSPCB.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the removal of respondent No. 5 from the post of Chairman, JSPCB, alleging that the appointment was in violation of the law and the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The appointment was made as a stop gap arrangement, and the State had already framed rules and initiated the process for the regular appointment of the Chairman, JSPCB.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of respondent No. 5 was a stop gap arrangement and not a regular appointment. The State had already framed rules and initiated the process for the regular appointment of the Chairman, JSPCB, addressing most of the grievances raised by the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Chairman, JSPCB, and the alleged violation of the law and directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The petitioner sought the removal of respondent No. 5 from the post of Chairman, JSPCB.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment of respondent No. 5 was a stop gap arrangement, and the State had already framed rules and initiated the process for the regular appointment of the Chairman, JSPCB, addressing most of the grievances raised by the petitioner. The court also emphasized the discretionary power of the Court in issuing a writ of quo warranto and the principles guiding the issuance of such writs.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition seeking the removal of respondent No. 5 from the post of Chairman, JSPCB, as no interference was warranted, and the State had already framed rules and initiated the process for the regular appointment of the Chairman, JSPCB.
JUDGMENT :
Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ of ‘quo warranto’ for removal of respondent No. 5 from the post of Chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (for short “JSPCB”) on the ground that he has been appointed in complete violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tegi Tagi Tara Vs. Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors. [(2018) 11 SCC 734].
Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to frame appropriate guidelines or recruitment rules in State Pollution Control Board (for short “SPCB”) as per mandate given in the case of Tegi Tagi Tara.
Petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the notification dated 24.06.2020 (Annexure-4), by which the respondent No. 5 has been appointed as Chairman, JSPCB.
After quashment of the said notification, the petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondents to fill-up the post of Chairman, JSPCB after framing proper guidelines/ recruitment rules considering the institutional requirement of the JSPCB in pursuance of direction issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Tegi Tagi Tara.
3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The Deputy Secretary, Forest, Environment & Climate Department vide its notification dated 05.12.2017 has reconstituted the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and several persons were appointed as Member of the Pollution Board merely on the basis of their designation. It is the case of the petitioner that on 17.02.2020, a meeting was held by the Selection Committee, which comprised of Additional Chief Secretary, Forest, Environment & Climate Department and Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and headed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, for appointment of Head of Forest Force (HoFF) under the Indian Forest Service, Jharkhand Cadre, wherein the Selection Committee has made recommendation of following persons in order of merit :
(II) Shri Priyesh Kumar Verma (1986)
4. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, recommended the name of Shri Shashi Nand Kyuliyar for seeking approval of Hon’ble the Chief Minister for appointment to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HoFF) as Shri Lal Ratnakar Singh has already superannuated from service. However, the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 22.06.2020 took a decision to appoint respondent No. 5, Priyesh Kumar Verma, to the post of PCCF (HoFF) and further took decision that respondent No. 5 shall also hold the office of Chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. Thereafter, the Joint Secretary, Forest, Environment & Climate Change, Govt. of Jharkhand vide its notification dated 24.06.2020, appointed the respondent No. 5 to the post of PCCF (HoFF). The Joint Secretary, Forest, Environment & Climate Change, Govt. of Jharkhand in the said notification further ordered that in addition to the post of PCCF (HoFF), the respondent No. 5 shall also hold the office of Chairman, JSPCB till further orders.
5. Aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No. 5, as he has been appointed as PCCF in total disregard to the recommendation of the Selection Committee on 17.02.2020, which comprised of Additional Chief Secretary, Forest, Environment & Climate Department and Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and headed by Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ of quo warranto for removal of respondent No. 5 from the post of Chairman, JSPCB.
6. Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously urges that respondent No. 5 has no authority to hold the office of Chairman, JSPCB by virtue of being PCCF (HoFF) inasmuch as the candidature of the best suitable candidate considering APARs which includes parameters such as outstanding merit and competence has been totally ignored. The appointment of respond
The discretionary power of the Court in issuing a writ of quo warranto and the principles guiding the issuance of such writs.
The court affirmed the need for transparent and qualified appointments to the KSPCB, holding that the guidelines must align with statutory provisions and prior court rulings.
The court reinforced that appointments made by a selection committee should not be judicially reviewed unless there are clear statutory violations or evidence of bad faith.
The Government decided to create four wings in the Food Safety and Standards Department so as to efficiently and appropriately carry out the functions of the said department. It is curious to note th....
Point of Law : Since the appointment of the 7th respondent is made, creating a supernumerary post, there is no other option to the petitioner, than to approach this Court, by filing a writ petition s....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
