RONAKKUMAR DEVCHANDBHAI PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent authorities to hold that the posts of Director Project Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Consultants do not exist as per the Gujarat Council of Primary Education Service Rules and Regulations, 1996 and that the appointments of the private respondents to the concerned posts are non est.

(2.) The foregoing prayers are premised by the petitioner on the following facts:

(3.) In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave appearing for the respondent Nos.7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 17, 21, 28, 32, 34, 38, 42, 44, 47, 49, 57 and 61 to 64, after making oral submission has also tendered a written submissions. It is submitted that the petitioner is for issuance of writ of quo warranto and praying hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is submitted the private respondents are serving on the posts of District. Programme Engineer (D.P.E.) or Assistant (c) Engineer (A.E.). So far as respondent Nos.64 and 63 are concerned, they are not the employees but are invited members and are working as consultants. Thus, it is submitted that they are not the employees of the respondent society, and the chart of such employees reveals that they are not working on any public post. It is thus, submitted that the essential requirement for quo warranto issuance of writ of is that the employee should be working against the public office. It is submitted that the respondent society is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act and is also registered with the Gujarat Public Trusts Act. Thus, the respondent No.5 society cannot be said to be a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that neither the employees can be said to be holding a public office nor the respondent No.5 can be said to be "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, a writ of quo warranto may not be issued. It is also asserted by the learned Advocate that the petition Is actuated with mala fide. Earlier the petitioner was appointed by one Shrey Consultancy in the year 2013-14 to 2015-16, which had its contract with respondent No.5. The petitioner was serving with respondent No.5 through consultant and just to harass the employees and respondent No.5, this petition has been filed after several years. It is submitted that as can be seen from the chart, the employees are serving for more than ten years and after several years of services, now their service has been questioned. Thus, it is submitted that the petition may kindly be rejected on the ground of delay, latches and acquiescence.