LALAN THAKUR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court, a social worker and Chairman of Non-Government Organisation ( Loktantrik Bhrishtachar Mukti Morcha), Gwalior has filed this present petition challenging the validity of an order dated 27th December, 2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the State Government by which the respondent No.3 has been re-appointed on the post of Chief Engineer for a period of one year. The contention of the petitioner is that in the Public Works department State of Madhya Pradesh, there are 11 sanctioned posts of Chief Engineers, out of which 08 posts are for general category, 02 are reserved for the Scheduled Caste category and 01 post is reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioner has further stated that the State of Madhya Pradesh has enacted the rules under Article 309 of the Constitution, for appointment of the Chief Engineers and the Engineer-in-Chief known as the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department Engineer-in-Chief and Chief Engineers Recruitment Rules. 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1983) and the Rules of 1983 does not provide for re-appointment. It has also been stated by the petitioner that age of retirement of these officers is governed under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sewak Adhiwarshiki Ayu Adhiniyam, 1967 and as per the amended in the aforesaid Act. i.e.. Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak Adhivarshiki Ayu Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1998, the age of retirement has been increased to 60 years and therefore, once there is a statutory provision which provides for retirement from Government service at the age of 60 years, the respondent No.3 could not have been granted the re-appointment on the post of Chief Engineer by the respondents No.1 and 2. The petitioner has also enclosed a circular issued by the State Government dated 23rd January, 1999 by which the State Government has placed a total ban on extension/re-appointment and has also enclosed a circular dated 22nd February, 2005 by which it has been reiterated that no extension / re- appointment is permitted in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner has further stated that the post which was likely to fall vacant was to be filled by a reserved category candidate, and therefore, by granting re-appointment to the respondent No.3, the rights of a reserved category candidate have been infringed. It has also been averred by the petitioner that re-appointment to the respondent No.3 has been granted contrary to the public interest and respondent No.3 is not having any special technical or scientific knowledge nor is doing any work making his service indispensable. The petitioner has also stated before this Court that he does have locus standi to file this present petition as he is a social worker and public interest is involved in the matter.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd.. vs. State of West Bengal and others reported in AIR 1962 SC 1044 on the ground of maintainability of a writ petition. He has also relied upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of The University of Mysore vs. C.D.Govinda Rao and another. AIR 1965 SC 491, again on the ground of maintainability of the writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of U.P., and others, (2001) 4 SCC 734 wherein it has been held that a third party does have a locus standi to file a writ petition in case it is a writ of quo warranto or habeas corpus or Public Interest Litigation.