This writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by a practising advocate at Allahabad, Sri Santosh Kumar Yadav warsi claiming a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 12. 1. 09 passed by the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of U. P. , Lucknow, by means of which the extension in service for a period of two years has been granted to the respondent no. 2 on the post of Engineer-in-Chief.

The second prayer which has been made is for issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto requiring the respondent no. 2 to show the authority of law by which he was continuing on the post of Engineer- in-Chief. The third prayer has been made that the respondent no. 2 be restrained from functioning as such.

A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri J. N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General and by Sri S. K. Kalia, Senior Advocate, appearing for respondent no. 2 that in view of the fact that the challenge made to the aforesaid order of extension by one aggrieved person, namely, Sri Onkar Singh Kadam in

Writ Petition No. 239 (SB) of 2009 has already been rejected by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 5. 3. 09 and, therefore, writ of quo warranto would not be maintainable.

Besides, a plea has also been taken that the Public Interest Petition on the behest of the petitioner is not maintainable.

Before proceeding further, we would like to state at the outset that the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari by the petitioner, who cannot be said to be an aggrieved person himself, alongwith the prayer of issuance of quo warranto is not maintainable.

However, considering the plea of the petitioner that since the extension in service to the respondent no. 2 has been granted grossly in violation of the statutory provisions, therefore, the writ of quo warranto would lie, we proceed to consider the arguments of both the sides.

Sri Amit Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that in terms of the provisions of second proviso to Fundamental Rule 56 (a) of Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules contained in Financial Handbook, Vol. II, Part II-IV, extension in service could not have been given to the respondent no. 2 as the conditions mentioned therein, which are conditions precedent, did not exist and the procedure was not followed.

The second Proviso to the aforesaid Fundamental Rule 56 (a) reads as under:

"provided further that a Government servant holding highly specialized technical job whose replacement has not been possible to be arranged before his retirement even after efforts made in this regard, may be granted extension of service up to the age of sixty-two years, if such extension is unavoidable in public interest and the grounds for such extension are recorded in writing. "

The third Proviso of the aforesaid Rules gives power to terminate the extension of service before the expiry of such extension by giving a notice in writing of not less than three months in the case of a permanent or, of one month in the case of a temporary Government servant, or pay and allowances in lieu of such notice.

The note says that each case for extension of service shall be put up for orders, to the Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary.

The challenge to the aforesaid extension order became the subject matter of consideration in the aforesaid writ petition bearing number 239 (SB) of 2009: Onkar Singh Kadam vs. State of U. P. and another, wherein the same very pleas were raised and it was asserted that the extension has been given arbitrarily.

In that case, the petitioner also claimed that under the interim orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, by means of which the implementation of the order of extension of service of respondent, was stayed by this Court vide order dated 11. 2. 09, he was considered for promotion and was given promotion and, therefore, the extension be quashed.