ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto against respondent No.3 as he is ineligible to hold the post of Municipal Commissioner, Chikkaballapura. The petitioner is also seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Order dated 10.08.2023 passed by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-A, by which respondent No.3 has been posted to work as the Municipal Commissioner of the City Municipal Council in Chikkaballapura.

2. The petitioner who is a Councilor of the City Municipal Council of Chikkaballapura, contends that the State Government/Director of Municipal Administration previously appointed Smt. Pampashree UP, a Chief Officer Grade-1, as Municipal Commissioner through Government Order dated 14.03.2023, despite her ineligibility for the position. Despite assurances for the appointment of an eligible Municipal Commissioner Grade officer, no suitable candidate was appointed. The petitioner asserts that the essential eligibility criteria for the position of Municipal Commissioner Grade-II mandates a minimum service tenure of five years in the capacity of Chief Officer Grade-

I. The prescribed recruitment method is through promotion from within the ranks of Chief Officer Grade-I. However, if no suitable candidate is available for promotion, appointment can be made through deputation of an officer from the Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale). Respondent No.3, the current Municipal Commissioner of Chikkaballapura City Municipal Council, who belongs to the Chief Officer Grade-I, lacks necessary qualification and competence to hold the position of Municipal Commissioner Grade-II as per the petitioner's contentions.

3. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 contends that the writ petition lacks merit and is misconceived, as the impugned order under challenge dated 10.08.2023 was made in consideration of public and administrative interests, explicitly stating continuation until further orders. He asserts that no fault or illegality can be found in the impugned order. Referring to a previous case, Smt. Leelavathi vs. Sri Palaiah & Ors1, it was admitted that there was a serious shortage of candidates for the critical post of Municipal Commissioner, and steps were being taken to address this issue. He would contend that respondent No.3’s appointment, being a prerogative of the Government, was made to meet public and administrative exigencies.

4. Placing reliance on Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR), he would contend that, a government servant can be appointed to be in-charge of the duties of a vacant post if eligible according to Cadre and Recruitment Rules or if holding an equivalent or higher-grade post and that even though Rule 32 was not explicitly mentioned in the order, it should be read into it. He would contend that the arrangement made though in the form of a transfer should be read as an in-charge arrangement. Further placing reliance on second proviso

1 W.P.No.6959/2022

to Rule 16 of the Karnataka Civil Service (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, he would contend that where it is necessary in public interest, an officer holding a post in the next lower grade can be appointed. Therefore, he would contend that a writ of quo warranto cannot be invoked for an in-charge arrangement. Additionally, he would criticize the belated nature of the petitioner's challenge, as a City Municipal Councillor should support day-to-day administration rather than filing petitions after a considerable delay.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and learned AGA.

6. The petitioner has filed the present writ for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. It is a trite law that a writ of quo warranto can be issued when the holder of a public office has been appointed in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.

7. This Court previously adjudicated a matter analogous to the present case in W.P.No.695