Quo Warranto Against Public Appointment Only If Contrary To Statutory Rules, Not Administrative Instructions Or Mere Allegations: Gauhati HC - 2025-03-18

Tracking Legal Developments.

PIL Challenging Re-engagement of Special Chief Secretary (Forest) Dismissed by Gauhati High Court

Gauhati: The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the contractual re-engagement of Shri MK Yadava , a retired Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer, as Special Chief Secretary (Forest) by the Government of Assam. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Kaushik Goswami held that a writ of quo warranto can only be issued when an appointment is contrary to statutory rules, not merely administrative instructions or unsubstantiated allegations. The court also expressed doubts regarding the bona fides of the petitioner.

The PIL was filed by Rohit Choudhury , an environmental activist, seeking a writ of quo warranto for the removal of Shri Yadava from the post and a writ of certiorari against the notification of his re-engagement.

Background of the Case

Shri MK Yadava , who retired as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force on February 29, 2024, was re-engaged as Special Chief Secretary (Forest) for a period of one year with effect from March 1, 2024, through a notification issued on his retirement day. This re-engagement was subsequently extended for another year from March 1, 2025. The terms included remuneration based on his last drawn pay minus pension, without benefits like GPF, GIS, or additional allowances, but with medical reimbursement. He was granted full Financial and Administrative Powers.

Petitioner's Contentions

The petitioner primarily challenged the re-engagement on several grounds, including:

Violation of Rules 16(1) and 16(1A) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, and Fundamental Rule 56(d).

Breach of State Government guidelines for contractual engagement of retired officers issued via Office Memorandum dated July 18, 2018.

Allegations regarding Shri Yadava 's past conduct, suggesting he was not an "outstanding" officer and was prone to misusing power, citing instances like rhinoceros poaching in Kaziranga during his tenure, alleged fund misuse, and a show-cause notice from MoEFCC regarding forest land violations.

The re-engagement notifications lacked reasons, potentially affecting the morale of serving officers.

Conferring full financial and administrative powers violated the OM dated July 18, 2018, which suggested work allotment by the senior-most secretary and stipulated that re-employment should not affect in-service promotions.

An amendment to the re-engagement procedure via OM dated February 16, 2024, allowing re-engagement with Chief Minister's approval without mandatory prior State Empowered Committee (SEC) consideration, was arbitrary.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court meticulously examined the scope of a writ of quo warranto in service matters, relying on several Supreme Court pronouncements, including Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors. , State of West Bengal vs. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors. , and B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Assn.

The bench reiterated the settled legal position that a writ of quo warranto can only be issued when an appointment to a public office is made in violation of statutory provisions/rules .

Addressing the petitioner's grounds, the Court observed:

The Office Memoranda dated July 18, 2018, and February 16, 2024, laying down guidelines for contractual engagement, are administrative instructions/orders and not statutory in nature . Citing B. Srinivasa Reddy (II) , the Court held that a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued based on the violation of administrative instructions. The Court also found no inherent violation of the OMs in the re-engagement anyway.

Rules 16(1), 16(1A) of the 1958 Rules and FR 56(d) are applicable to re-employment by the Central Government , not the State Government. The Court noted that a Central Government letter merely suggests States may keep in mind these instructions but does not make them automatically applicable.

The amendment via OM dated February 16, 2024, allowing re-engagement with Chief Minister's approval bypassing the SEC, was deemed a policy matter in which the Court saw little scope for interference, especially since SEC recommendations also required CM approval as per the original OM.

The allegations regarding Shri Yadava 's past conduct were held to be mere allegations unsupported by material demonstrating that he had been found guilty in relation to them. The Court noted that a show-cause notice does not prove guilt, and no prosecution was shown to have been launched. Quo warranto cannot be issued based on unsubstantiated allegations.

Furthermore, the Court expressed doubt regarding the bona fides of the petitioner. It noted that the petitioner had previous complaints and pending litigation (before the NGT) against Shri Yadava , where the officer had countered the allegations, and a news report indicated the officer had termed the petitioner's complaints false. This, coupled with the petitioner's delay in challenging the initial one-year engagement (waiting until the re-engagement for the second year was notified), led the Court to question the genuine public interest behind the PIL. The Court referenced Supreme Court judgments highlighting that quo warranto is discretionary and should be refused if it stems from malice, ill will, or lacks bona fides.

Citing B. Srinivasa Reddy (II) , the Court reiterated that courts cannot sit in judgment over the government's wisdom in selecting a person for appointment, provided the person is qualified and eligible and the appointment is not contrary to statutory rules.

Decision

Based on these findings, the Gauhati High Court concluded that the PIL petition challenging the re-engagement of Shri MK Yadava as Special Chief Secretary (Forest) was not maintainable . The petition was accordingly dismissed. No order was made as to costs.

The judgment underscores the strict legal limitations on the scope of a writ of quo warranto , particularly in challenging appointments in public service, confining its application primarily to violations of statutory mandates and emphasizing the importance of the petitioner's bona fides.