HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11879/2019

Dr. Pc Jain S/o Shri Kc Jain, Aged About 79 Years, R/o S-3, Jyoti

Nagar Extn. Amrudon Ka Bagh, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,

Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Building, Jaipur.

2.

Addl. Chief Secretary-Cum- Secretary To The Department

Of Personnel, State Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Building,

Jaipur.

3.

Addl. Chief Secretary-Cum Secretary (Home), State Of

Rajasthan, Secretariat Building, Jaipur.

4.

Shri Bhupendra Yadav, Director General Of Police, Police

Hqrs. Lal Kothi, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Dr. P.C. Jain, petitioner is present in

person

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

Order

15/07/2019

This petition has been filed with all encompassing

prayers as under:

“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully

prayed that in the facts and circumstances stated

above, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for

the relevant record from the department,

examine the same and quash and set aside

Annexure-2 thereby directing the State

Government to appoint the DGP in consonance

with the provisions of law, mandate of the law,

provisions of the directions of Hon’ble the

(2 of 8)

[CW-11879/2019]

Supreme Court of India and also pass such other

orders / directions in the nature of quo warranto,

mandamus, prohibition or any other writ in its

nature thereby directing and declaring the

appointment of the present DGP respondent Shri

Bhupendra Yadav to be null and void.

The proper directions be also issued to the

State Government to act according to law and

also pass such other orders which are found in

the interest of justice and in consonance with

law.”

The formulation and language of the prayer is that of

the petitioner himself.

Stating himself to be a very conscientious and law

abiding citizen, the petitioner submits that he is concerned with

the mode of appointment and minimum tenure of the Director

General of Police (hereafter ‘the DGP’) in the State of Rajasthan

which he asserts was / is not in consonance with the directions of

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh & Ors. Versus

Union of India & Ors. {IA No. 24616 of 2019 in Writ Petition (Civil)

No. 310 of 1996}. It has been submitted that the guidelines of the

Apex Court with regard to the procedure for appointment and

minimum tenure of the DGPs have not been followed in appointing

respondent no.4 as the DGP. It has been submitted that under

(3 of 8)

[CW-11879/2019]

Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 (hereafter ‘the

Act of 2007’), Director General of Police appointed shall have a

minimum tenure of two years, albeit subject to the Rules made

under All India Services Act, 1951. In the circumstances, it has

been prayed that a writ including quo-warranto amongst others be

issued against the respondent no.4 and he be removed from the

office of the DGP, Rajasthan with the State Government

simultaneously being directed to make a fresh appointment of

DGP, Rajasthan in accordance law.

Dr. PC Jain petitioner appearing in person has reiterated

the averments in the petition.

Heard. Perused the petition. Considered.

This petition is completely misdirected and without

force.

The Apex Court in the case of B. Srinivas Reddy Versus

Karnataka Urban Water Supply Drainage Board Employees’

Association and others reported in (2006) 11 Supreme Court

Cases 731 (II) has held that when the Court is seized of a writ of

(4 of 8)

[CW-11879/2019]

quo warranto, it is for it to first determine as to whether a case

has been made out for issue of such a writ. In the case of The

University of Mysore & Anr. Versus C.D. Govinda Rao and another

reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 a Constitution Bench of the Apex

Court held that a writ of quo-warranto entails a judicial scrutiny to

ascertain as to whether