SUDHAKAR KHEDKAR Vs. GWALIOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has filed a writ in the nature of "quo-warranto" for a direction to respondents No. 3 and 4 commanding them to show the legal authority of their appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer. It is further prayed that respondents No. 5 and 6 be sent back from the deputation to the parent employment. It is further cotended that the respondent No. 7-State Government has no power to change the employer of respondents No. 5 and 6. It is further pleaded that the names of respondents No. 3 to 6 be deleted from the seniority list of Assistant Engineer, published by respondent No. 1-Gwalior Development Authority, or in alternative, appellant-petitioner be treated as senior to respondents No. 3, 4 and 6. He has further claimed arrears of salary for the post of Assistant Engineer from the date from which the appellant-petitioner is serving on the post of Assistant Engineer. Single Bench has dismissed the petition holding therein that the writ in the nature of "quo-warranto" is not maintainable.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that respondents No. 3 and 4 have been appointed without any authority of law. Their appointment order is issued by the State Government. It is contended by the appellant that the State Government was not empowered to issue the appointment order. It may be mentioned that the appointment orders were issued on 7th April, 1988. In the year 1988 Recruitment Rules of the year 1987, known as "Madhya Pradesh Development Authority Services (Officers and Servants) Recruitment Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "Recruitment Rules") had come into force. Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules provides that all appointments to Authority services, Class 1 and Class 2 shall be made by the State Government and all appointments to the Authority services, Class 3 and Class 4 shall be made by the Chairman with prior approval of the Board. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the order of appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 is without jurisdiction. These appointments were made in the year 1988 and the appointments were not challenged immediately thereafter when the writ petition was filed in the year 1997, about 9 years after their appointment. Therefore, Single Bench has rightly held that the writ in the nature of "quo-warrantd''' is not maintainable in this case.

(3.) APPELLANT further claimed that he is working as ad hoc Asstt. Engineer from the year 1987 as per the resolution of the Development Authority. We have seen the order dated 29.3.1986, issued by the Chairman, wherein the appellant is simply directed that he will lookafter the current work of Asstt. Engineer till the said Asstt. Engineer performs these additional duties. Thus, current charge was given to him. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.2.1990 appellant was appointed as Asstt. Engineer on ad hoc basis and this order was passed in anticipation of permission of the State Government. It is further mentioned in the order that in case of any objection from the State Government the order shall stand cancelled.