1. Writ of quo warranto against appointment as CMD of NHPC, challenging eligibility and selection process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
ASHWINI KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS – Respondent
W.P.(C)-16721/2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Navendu Kumar, Karan Chopra
For the Respondents: Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Kushagra Kumar, Amit Kumar Rana, Abhinav Bhardwaj, Avneesh Arputham, Ankit Sharma
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Navendu Kumar, Karan Chopra
For the Respondents: Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Kushagra Kumar, Amit Kumar Rana, Abhinav Bhardwaj, Avneesh Arputham, Ankit Sharma
Locus standi is relaxed for quo warranto writs but does not permit a complete stranger to challenge public appointments unless PIL requirements are met. Furthermore, discretionary relief under Article 226 is denied if a statutory infraction occurred without causing substantial injustice or excluding eligible candidates.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of quo warranto - Locus standi - While strict rules of locus standi are relaxed in quo warranto proceedings, it is not open to a complete stranger with no direct connection or grievance to challenge an appointment to public office; if such a petition is filed as a public interest litigation, it must conform to the applicable rules and guidelines governing such litigation (Paras 15-27).
(B) Service Law - Appointment to public office - Discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction - The remedy under Article 226 is discretionary and subject to the Court's satisfaction that relief is required for doing substantial justice; interference for mere infraction of statutory norms is not a matter of course, especially when the competent authority possesses the power to relax eligibility criteria and such relaxation has not resulted in the exclusion of other eligible candidates or caused injustice (Paras 28-32).
Facts of the case:
A petition for a writ of quo warranto was filed challenging the appointment of the Chairman and Managing Director of a public sector enterprise. The petitioner alleged that the appointee was ineligible because they did not meet the minimum length of service in the prescribed pay scale as of the date of vacancy and were under probation. It was further contended that the recruitment board exceeded its authority by relaxing eligibility criteria, a power purportedly vested only in the competent approving committee. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition on the grounds that the petitioner was a stranger to the process and lacked locus standi.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any minimal connection to the recruitment process beyond being a citizen. The petition, although claiming to be in the public interest, did not comply with the rules for Public Interest Litigation. On merits, the Court observed that the relaxation of eligibility criteria was ultimately approved by the competent authority possessing such power. Since the relaxation only affected internal candidates and no other potential candidate was excluded, no substantial injustice occurred. Moreover, the appointee's term was nearing its end.
Issues: Whether a person with no personal interest or connection to a public appointment has the locus standi to seek a writ of quo warranto, and whether discretionary relief under Article 226 should be granted in the absence of prejudice to other candidates and where the competent authority approved the relaxation of norms.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the relaxation of locus standi in quo warranto petitions does not extend to permitting a complete stranger to challenge an appointment unless the requirements of a PIL are satisfied. Furthermore, writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and where a legal infraction does not result in injustice—such as when the proper authority grants a relaxation that does not exclude other candidates—the Court may decline to interfere.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued appointee ineligible due to probation and service shortfall; respondents raised locus standi and defended relaxation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Strict locus standi relaxed for quo warranto but not for complete strangers; discretion exercised not to interfere. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
4. Quo warranto requires minimal connection between petitioner and appointment; relief is discretionary even if breach shown. (Para 22 , 28 , 29 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; matter to be treated as PIL for future cases. (Para 33 )
6. Can a complete stranger maintain a writ of quo warranto?
No, strict locus standi is relaxed but not eliminated; the petitioner must show at least minimal connection to the appointment to be entitled to relief. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
7. Is relief under a writ of quo warranto discretionary?
Yes, even if eligibility criteria are breached, the court may refuse relief considering facts like absence of affected complainant, approval by competent authority, and short tenure. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
8. Does PESB have the power to relax eligibility criteria for board-level appointments in CPSEs?
PESB's relaxation was only to enlarge the candidate pool, subject to final approval by the ACC, which has the vested power to relax eligibility criteria. (Para 31 )
JUDGEMENT
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ of quo warranto against the appointment of respondent No. 7 as Chairman and Managing Director ["CMD"] of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. ["NHPC"]. He also seeks a declaration that the selection process undertaken by the Union of India ["UOI"] and the Public Enterprises Selection Board ["PESB"] [respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein] was illegal.
A. Facts:
2. The impugned recruitment to the post of CMD, NHPC, commenced with an advertisement dated 17.06.2022, issued by PESB. For the purposes of the present litigation, the following features of the advertisement are relevant: -
A) The "date of vacancy" was mentioned as 01.09.2022.
B) Section III of the advertisement dealt with eligibility of candidates. It provided inter alia as follows: -
"2. Employment Status:
The applicant must, on the date of application, as well as on the date of interview, be employed in a regular capacity – and not in a contractual/ad-hoc capacity – in one of the followings:-
(a) Central Public Sector Enterprise (CPSE) (including a full-time functional Director in the Board of a CPSE);
(b) Central Government including the Armed Forces of the Union and All India Services;
(c) State Public Sector Enterprise (SPSE) where the annual turnover is *Rs.2,000 crore or more;
(d) Private Sector in company where the annual turnover is *Rs.2,000 crore or more.
Preference would be given to candidates from listed Companies.
(* The average audited annual turnover of three financial years preceding the calendar year in which the post is advertised shall be considered for applying the approved limits)"
C) The advertisement also specified the following pay scales, at which candidates from Central Public Sector Enterprises ["CPSE"] must be working:
"5. Pay Scale:
(a) Central Public Sector Enterprises Eligible Scale of Pay
(i) Rs. 8250-9250 (IDA) Pre 01/01/1992
(ii) Rs. 11500-13500 (IDA) Post 01/01/1992
(iii) Rs. 23750-28550 (IDA) Post 01/01/1997
(iv) Rs. 62000-80000 (IDA) Post 01/01/2007
(v) Rs. 150000-300000 (IDA) Post 01/01/2017
(vi) Rs. 22400-24500 (CDA) Pre-revised
(vii) Rs. 67000-79000 (CDA) Post 01/01/2006
(viii) Rs. 182200-224100 (Level 15) CDA
The minimum length of service required in the eligible scale will be one year for internal candidates, and two years for others as on the date of vacancy.", (Emphasis supplied.)
3. Respondent No. 7 herein, at the time of the advertisement, was working as an Executive Director of NHPC. He applied for the post of CMD and was called for an interview. A communication dated 26.12.2022, addressed by PESB to the Secretary, Ministry of Power, has been annexed to the writ petition, which shows that seven candidates were called for the interview, including six candidates who were already working in NHPC. At the time of the interview, respondent No. 7 was working as Director (Technical and Projects) at NHPC.
4. At a meeting held on 07.03.2024, PESB recommended respondent No. 7 for the said post. By notification dated 06.08.2024, respondent No. 7 was appointed. The notification states that the appointment was made upon approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet ["ACC"], "in relaxation of the eligibility criteria". His appointment was until the date of superannuation, i.e. 30.06.2025, or until further orders, whichever was earlier.
B. Submissions of Counsel:
5. I have heard Mr. Navendu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, and Mr. Avneesh Arputham, learned counsel for respondent No.7.
6. Mr. Kumar argued that respondent No. 7 was ineligible for the post on two grounds, both based upon an Office Order dated 29.09.2021, issued by NHPC, under which respondent No. 7 was promoted to the post of Executive Director, NHPC. The relevant extracts of the said Office Order are reproduced below: -
"Sh. Raj Kumar Chaudhary, General Manager(Civil), Emp. No. 101344H in the IDA
