A.M. KHANWILKAR, CJ.

1. This pro bono publico petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of quo warranto, raises questions regarding the appointments made on the public posts in illegal and arbitrary manner in the State of Madhya Pradesh, resulting in denial of opportunity of employment to the eligible persons.

2. According to the petitioner, the impugned appointment of respondent No. 1 on the post of Sub-Engineer in the Water Resources Department of the State Government, is a classic case of not only arbitrary action of persons involved in the decision making process of having bestowed undue favour on the respondent No. 1 but also nullifying or defying the order passed by this Court in the previous litigation regarding the appointment of respondent No. 1 in the same manner elsewhere.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was initially appointed on daily wages in the service of Nagar Panchayat, Mauganj, District Rewa. His appointment as daily rated employee on the post of Sub Engineer, made in the year 1990, was against the statutory provisions of the rules governing those services in the Nagar Panchayat. The State Government in exercise of its powers vested under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, framed rules known as Madhya Pradesh Municipal Services (Scale of Pay and allowances) Rules, 1967. Under the said Rules, the posts were classified. Under the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968, wherein provision has been made for making direct recruitment on the post sanctioned in any Municipal Council/Nagar Panchayat. The method of recruitment prescribed therein did not contemplate appointment on daily wage basis.

4. Be that as it may, the persons in power went on to regularize the appointment of respondent No. 1 on the post of Sub Engineer by an order dated 03.04.1995. That order was passed, purportedly, on the basis of some recommendation made by the Selection Committee said to have been constituted, vide minutes dated 28.03.1995. The petitioner, who was the elected Councillor of Nagar Panchayat, Mauganj at the relevant time, therefore, approached this Court to challenge the order of regularization of respondent No. 1 herein by way of W.P. No. 2673/1995. It was specifically alleged that the order of regularization issued in favour of the respondent No. 1 was in utter breach of the law and the rules framed therefor, and that the recommendation made by the Committee was in gross violation of the rules and the prevailing instructions of the State Government.

5. The said writ petition was heard by a single Bench of this Court and by order dated 11.09.1997, the Court held that the selection procedure followed, preceding the regularisation of respondent No. 1, was de hors the rules. From the finding recorded by this Court in the said case, it is abundantly clear that from day one the appointment of respondent No. 1 in the service was against the law, as observed in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order passed by this Court, which reads thus :

"5. From a perusal of the proceedings of the selection committee, this Court finds that the authorities of the State and the Nagar Panchayat have patently shown favouritism to respondent No. 2. Although the respondent No. 2 did not fulfill the requisite minimum prescribed period of service, the Directorate issued a letter for his regularisation and the selection committee of the Nagar Panchayat immediately obeyed those directions. When such orders of regularisation are obtained by approach and favouritism, public interest suffers because eligible candidates who could compete for the post lose chance of employment. The petitioner was appointed as daily rated Sub Engineer only in the year 1990. If he was working against a sanctioned post, the post was required to be