NITIN SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NITIN Sinha is a Bardana (gunny bag) Trader. He has filed this petition, styled as Public Interest Litigation (PIL), for issuance of a writ of quo warranto to quash the contractual appointment of 6th respondent on the post of Principal Secretary, Information Technology and Bio Technology (I.T. & B.T.) and giving him additional charge of Principal Secretary, Energy; Principal Secretary, Chief Minster and Principal Secretary, Public Relation. The 6th respondent was a member of Indian Revenue Services (Custom and Central Excise). He resigned from the said post and thereafter was appointed on the post of Secretary, I.T. and B.T. Government of Chhattisgarh on 27.01.2010 on contractual basis for a period of 3 years. The conditions of contractual appointment were notified vide order dated 21.4.2010 (Annexure - P/1). The instant PIL was filed on 22.8.2012 challenging the validity of the said order.

(2.) LATER on, during the pendency of the writ petition, on 16.1.2013 the 6th respondent was again appointed on contractual basis for a period of 2 years. Accordingly, the writ petition was amended and relief(s) relating to quashment of the second appointment order dated 16.1.2013 was added.

(3.) MR . V.G. Tamaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the 6th respondent does not fulfill the requisite qualification for being appointed on the post of Secretary, I.T. & B.T. and Secretary to the Chief Minister. His appointment is illegal for want of requisite and necessary qualifications. It was also contended that the 6th respondent is not a member of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Cadre, whereas, the post held by him are cadre post(s) therefore, his appointment on the cadre post(s) is illegal and void. Reference was made to various provisions of All India Service Act, 1951 (for short the 'Act 1951'); Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 (for short the 'Rules 1954') and Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955 (for short the 'Regulations, 1955'). Over and above all, it was contended by Mr. Tamaskar that the appointment was made in violation of the relevant rules framed for appointments on contractual basis.