P. SARAVANAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 4.7.2012 passed in W.P. No. 17001 of 2012, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the said writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the appointment of the fifth respondent as Law Secretary in the Union Territory of Puducherry. The writ petition was filed by the appellant/writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto questioning the authority under which the fifth respondent is functioning as the Law Secretary to the Government of Puducherry.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that the fifth respondent, who was holding the post of Deputy Secretary to the Government (Law), Puducherry, was promoted to the post of Secretary to Government (Law), Puducherry by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 49, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing), dated 9.5.2012 issued by the first respondent. According to the petitioner, earlier there was a proposal to give only additional charge to the fifth respondent, but, taking into consideration that the fifth respondent was going to retire in another six months, the first respondent issued the notification appointing him as the Law Secretary to Government, which is contrary to the Recruitment Rules, since the fifth respondent was not qualified for holding the said post. Therefore, he has filed a representation, dated 28.5.2012 before the respondents requesting the Government of Puducherry to cancel the appointment made in favour of the fifth respondent and intimate the Union Public Service Commission to fill up the post on regular basis.

(3.) The stand taken by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-Union Territory of Puducherry is that the said appointment is purely temporary and ad hoc in nature till the regular selection of Law Secretary is made by the Government. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. The learned single Judge, relying upon the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees Association, 2006 11 SCC 731 dismissed the writ petition.