Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RJ) 13504
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN, J
Kamlesh Kumar Meena – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 4166/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nikhil Simlote
For the Respondents: Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG, Dr. Abhinav Sharma
Administrative exigencies cannot justify appointing unqualified individuals, reinforcing the need for adherence to statutory qualifications in public office.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Rajasthan Municipal Service (Administrative and Technical) Rules, 1963 - Challenge to the conferment of additional charge of Commissioner-Nagar Parishad Dausa on an unqualified individual - Court found the appointment contrary to statutory requirements specifying qualifications for the post, impacting the effective functioning of local governance. (Paras 23.1, 23.4, 23.6, 24)
(B) Jurisdiction - Scope of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 - Court emphasized that administrative exigencies cannot justify appointments contrary to established qualifications, reaffirming the importance of legality in administrative appointments. (Paras 23.6, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges the order conferring an unqualified individual with Commissioner responsibilities, arguing a violation of statutory qualifications and administrative principles impacting public administration.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the order conferring the additional charge, reiterating the necessity for statutory qualifications in appointments to maintain effective governance.
Issues: Whether the additional charge of Commissioner can be conferred on a person not qualified under existing rules, and if administrative exigencies can override statutory requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that mere administrative necessity does not justify the appointment of unqualified candidates, ensuring adherence to statutory qualifications.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges respondent's qualifications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against respondent's qualifications and statutory adherence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. respondent's defense based on administrative needs. (Para 9 , 10 , 20) |
| 4. court's determination on legality of additional charge. (Para 23 , 24) |
REPORTABLE Reserved on 09/04/2024 Pronounced on 14/05/2024
1. The instant petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers, as reproduced herein-under:-
(2 of 13) “i) Please to call for the record and allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
ii) Quash and set aside the order dated 17.02.2024 of giving charge to Respondent No. 4 as Commissioner of Nagar Parishad, Dausa.
iii) Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner.”
2. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R.B. Mathur, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Dausa, which is a Nagar Parishad (Municipal Corporation). The petitioner successfully contested the election of Parshad from Ward No. 55, and is presently a returning candidate for the said seat.
3. Learned counsel submitted that Smt. Monika Soni i.e. respondent no.4, who admittedly is an Executive Officer-III, was appointed as the Secretary of Nagar Parishad, Dausa vide order dated 15.02.2024, issued by the Department of Local Self Government i.e. respondent no.2.
4. At this stage, Mr. Mathur submitted that the cause and controversy in the instant matter arose when vide order dated 17.02.2024, as issued by the respondent no.2, Smt. Monika Soni i.e. respondent no.4, was bestowed with the additional charge of Commissioner-Nagar Parishad Dausa, de hors the provisions of Rajasthan Municipal Service (Administrative and Technical) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter, Rules of 1963).
5. In this background, being aggrieved with the bestowing of an additional charge of Commissioner upon the said private respondent no.4, the petitioner preferred a representation before the respondents, but no due heed was paid to the same.
(3 of 13)
6. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 17.02.2024 whereby the respondent no.2 has given an additional charge of Commissioner to Smt. Monika Soni i.e. respondent no.4, on the following grounds:-
6.1 That the respondent no.4 does not have the requisite qualifications to hold the post of Commissioner, as prescribed by the Rules of 1963 and the corresponding notification dated 30.01.2018, issued by the Department of Local Self Government i.e. respondent no.2 itself.
6.2 That holding the charge of Commissioner in addition to that of Secretary is against the spirit of Articles 14, 16 and 243B of the Constitution of India.
6.3 That as per the Rules of 1963 and the corresponding notification dated 30.01.2018, the post of Commissioner can only be fulfilled by way of promotion on the basis of merit. Moreover, only those officers who are Executive Officer-II can be promoted on the said post of Commissioner, subject to them possessing minimum three years of experience on said post.
6.4 That in the facts of the present case, Smt. Monika Soni i.e. private respondent no.4, is neither an Executive Officer-II and nor does she possess an experience of five years as Secretary of Municipal Council. Therefore, her appointment on the post of Commissioner is de hors the statutory Rules of 1963.
“3. In considered opinion of this Court, handling over charge of a Municipality to a parson unqualified to hold such post is not only contrary to rights/interest of petitioners but also against the better administration of Municipalities.
4. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable on 05.04.2021. (4 of 13)
5. Meanwhile, the State shall stand restrained from posting or passing any further order of giving charge of Commissioner Municipality to any person, who is not a
