SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(MP) 851

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Sanjay Yadav, Ashok Kumar Joshi, JJ.
Ashish Kumar Chaturvedi – Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 17448 of 2018
Decided On : 14-09-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri. Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel
For the Respondent:Shri. Vishal Mishra, learned Advocate General

The judgment establishes the importance of genuine public interest in public interest litigation and clarifies the circumstances under which a writ of quo warranto would lie.

Headnote:

RTI Activist - Absorption of respondent No.6 on the post of Registrar, Medicine in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior - Madhya Pradesh Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987, Swashasi Chikitsa Mahavidyalaya Ke Samvardhan Evam Samviliyan Sambandhi Niyam 1998 - Rules of 1987, Rule 6, Rule 20 (5) of Niyam 1998, Panchraj Tiwari Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Madhya Pradesh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2002, Right to Information Act, 2005, Neetu Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others, Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Others, Democratic Lawyers Forum Vs. Union of India & Others, Rajesh Awasthi Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Others - Writ of Quo Warranto

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, claiming to be an RTI activist, filed a writ petition questioning the absorption of respondent No.6 on the post of Registrar, Medicine in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. The petitioner alleged that the absorption was contrary to the relevant recruitment rules.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's bona fides were in doubt, and the petition was likely sponsored. The court also noted that the relaxation of rules for respondent No.6's promotion was within the government's power and that no relief could be granted to the petitioner.

Issues: The issues revolved around the absorption and promotion of respondent No.6, the petitioner's bona fides, and the maintainability of the public interest litigation in service matters.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for genuine public interest in public interest litigation and highlighted the limitations of such litigation in service matters. It also clarified the circumstances under which a writ of quo warranto would lie.

Final Decision: The petition failed, and the court dismissed it with no costs.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Yadav, J.

Petitioner claiming himself to be an RTI activist, pro bono, has filed this writ petition.

2. In paragraph No. 2 (3) of the petition, it is declared by the petitioner that the petition is filed on his own and not at the instance of someone else. It is declared that the litigation cost, including the advocate's fee and travel expenses of the lawyers are being borne by the petitioner himself. Those declarations as evident is under the heading 'Antecedents'. Rule 14 (2) under Chapter 13 requires that in a Regular Public Interest Litigation, a writ petition shall disclose “source of petitioner's finances for meeting the expenditure of the PIL”. On being quarried at the outset as to whether besides being RTI/Social activist, whether the petitioner has any other vocation to follow, to earn a livelihood and to meet out the expenses, learned counsel for the petitioner evades the answer, which creates a doubt as to bonafides of the petitioner being a self sponsored public spirited person to fight the cause for the public at large.

3. Be that as it may. The petitioner questions the absorption of respondent No.6 on the post of Registrar, Medicine in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior which is by order dated 24/07/2008. It is urged that the same is contrary to the Madhya Pradesh Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987 and Swashasi Chikitsa Mahavidyalaya Ke Samvardhan Evam Samviliyan Sambandhi Niyam 1998 (referred as “Niyam 1998”). It is urged that in both the Rules, there is no provision for absorption of Assistant Surgeon of Public Health and Family Welfare Department as Registrar in Medical College.

4. The order whereby respondent No.6 was absorbed in the Gajraraja Medical College, Gwalior which is in the name of Governor, State of Madhya Pradesh speaks thus:

^^e/; Áns'k 'kklu

fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx

ea=ky;

vkns'k

Hkksiky] fnukad 24 tqykbZ 2008

1- Øekad ,Q 2&36@08@1@ipiu] jkT; 'kklu ,rn }kjk MkŒ tsŒ,lŒ uke/kkjh lek;d 'kY; fpfdRld] yksd LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx tks orZeku esa lgk;d 'kY; fpfdRld ds in ij xtjkjktk fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;] Xokfy;j esa Áfrfu;qfDr ijinLFk gS] dk lafofy;u jftLVªkj esfMflu ds in ij xtjkjktk fpfdRlk egkfo?kky; Xokfy;j esa fd;k tkrk gSA

2- MkŒ uke/kkjh dh lafofy;u laca/kh lsok 'krsZ i`Fkd ls tkjh dh tkosxhA

e/; Áns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls

rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj

¼,Œ,eŒ iqjksfgr½

voj lfpo

e/; Áns'k 'kklu

fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx

i`"Bkadu Øekad ,Q 1&36@08@1@ipiu] Hkksiky] fnukad 24 tqykbZ 2008A**


5. It is pertinent to note, and the documents on record also reveal that the respondent No.6 is on deputation in said college since 2003.

6. The petitioner has referred to the Rules of 1987 which as per Rule 3 is applicable to every member of Madhya Pradesh Medical Education (Gazetted) Service. Rule 6 whereof makes provision for methods of recruitment which are :

(a) By direct recruitment by selection-competitive examination;

(b) By promotion of the member of the service;

(c) By transfer of persons who hold in a substantive capacity such posts in such services, as may be specified in this behalf.

7. Sub Rule (4) of Rule 6 stipulates that :

“(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), if in the opinion of the Government, the exigencies of the service so require the Government may with prior concurrence of the Department personal Administration Reform & Training adopt such method of recruitment to the service other than those specified in said sub-rule, for such post as it may, by order issued in this behalf, prescribe.”

8. These Rules besides providing recruitment by transfer, also empower the Government (which as per Rule 2 (a) is the “Appointing Authority”) if the exigency of the service so require to adopt such method of recruitment to the service other than those specified in sub-rule (1) by order issued in that behalf.

9. Even Rule 20 (5) of Swashasi Chikitsa Mahavidyalaya ke Samvardhan Evam Samvihan Sambandh Niyam (Chikitsa, Dant, Nursing Mahavidalya Tatha Mansik Arogya Shala ke Liye) 1998, which the




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top