Petitioner in person. v. UOI & ORS .....

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary

3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner seeks a writ of quo warranto quashing the appointment of the respondent no.3 Shri M.P. Gupta to the post of Director (Finance) in the respondent no.2 National Water Development Agency (hereinafter 2011:DHC:4278 referred to as NWDA), an autonomous body functioning under the respondent no.1 Ministry of Water Resources.

2. The writ petition was accompanied with an application for interim relief to restrain the respondent no.3 from functioning at the said post. Notice of the Writ Petition was issued but the interim relief declined. Counter affidavit was filed by the respondents. Pleadings were completed. However finding that the NWDA had been notified under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, vide order dated 11th December, 2009, the matter was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal. The said Tribunal vide order dated 26th March, 2010 finding that the challenge by the petitioner to the appointment of the respondent no.3 was in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and on the basis of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chausal 2010 (1) SCALE 492 holding that the Tribunal is not empowered to entertain a PIL, sent the matter back to this Court. The petitioner appearing in person and the counsels for the respondents have been heard.

3. The counsel for the respondent no.2 NWDA has, at the outset challenged the locus of the petitioner to maintain the challenge. The petitioner herein is not claiming himself to be entitled to the post appointment whereto is under challenge. His argument simplicitor is that NWDA had in the year 2001 invited applications for filling up the said post on deputation; that the respondent no.3 had joined the same on deputation for a period of four years but NWDA thereafter regularized the appointment without inviting any fresh applications. The counsel for the respondent no.2 NWDA relying on Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273 has contended that a stranger to the service concerned cannot be a person aggrieved so as to have the locus to challenge the appointment. Attention in this regard is also invited to B. Srinivasa Reddy v Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees’ Association AIR 2006 SCC 3106 laying down that in service jurisprudence it is for the aggrieved person i.e. the non appointee to assail the legality or correctness of the action and that third party has no locus standi to canvass the legality or correctness of the action. It was further held that public law declaration of legality of appointment would be made only at the behest of a public spirited person coming before the Court. The counsel for the respondent has further contended that the petitioner herein cannot be said to be such a public spirited person inasmuch as the petitioner has been filing various complaints and litigation against the respondent no.3, considering himself aggrieved from the respondent no.3 having made an adverse Annual Appraisal Report of the petitioner. Reliance is further placed on Dr. Devinder Gupta v. Union of India 128(2006) DLT 337 where also it was held that though the rule of locus standi is relaxed in case of writ of quo warranto but that does not mean that anybody can file a petition for a writ of quo warranto challenging any appointment to any post in the country even though he may not have any direct connection or grievance or interest in the matter.

4. The petitioner in the present case is also an employee of the NWDA and admits that at one time the respondent no.3 was the immediate superior of the petitioner and had made an adverse Annual Appraisal Report of the petitioner.

5. The respondents in their counter affidavit have disclosed as many as 13 writ petitions before this Court and 10 original applications before the Tribunal, filed by the petitioner and which were not disclosed by the petitioner in the petition. The Central Administrative Tribunal in one of the said proceedings instituted by the petitioner observed that the petitioner is suffering from paranoia without any convincing proof.

6. The petitioner during the hearing has drawn attention to the following: a) The University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491. I however fail to see as to how the said judgment is apposite. The Apex Court in the said judgment held that before a writ of quo warranto can be claimed, the petitioner has to satisfy the Court that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority. It was held that if the appointment was shown to be inconsistent with the qualification as they were advertised, that itself would justify the issue of a writ of quo warranto. b) Shri Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India (1992) 2 SCC 428. However this judgment again is found to be not apposite. c) Mocherla Venkataraya Sarma v. Y. Sivarama Prasad AIR 1961 AP 250 laying down that a writ of quo warranto would lie even at the instance of the petitioner who has no personal interest in the matter. However, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court aforesaid and in view of the petitioner having a personal animosity with the respondent no.3, the said judgment also is not found apposite.

7. The petitioner in his rejoinder has also referred to Dr. Kashinath G. Jalmi v. The Speaker (1993) 2 SCC 703 but that is on the aspect of laches.

8. I may also notice that the respondent no.3 originally appointed on deputation has been absorbed in accordance with para 10 of the DOPT OM No. AB-14017/71/89-Estt(RR) dated 3rd October, 1989.

9. I am, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, of the opinion that the petition purportedly filed in public interest is in fact motivated and even otherwise no case of usurpation of any public office without authority is made out. The petition is therefore dismissed. I refrain from imposing any costs on the petitioner.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) August 23, 2011 M