Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 1 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998 IVAD Delhi 334, 74 (1998) DLT 702
Author: K Ramamoorthy
Bench: K Ramamoorthy
ORDER
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The Petitioner Union has challenged the posting of the 5th Respondent to the post of Chief General Manager. The proceedings of the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi dated 04.06.1997 would state that the 5th Respondent was working as Joint Director, Indian System of Medicines is posted as Chief General Manager, DTC which post was vacant.
The order dated 04.06.1997 reads as under:
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Services I
Department)
5, Shamnath Marg,
Delhi - 54.
No:F.8/1/97/S.I/Pt.II/ Dated 04 June 1979
ORDER
The Lt. Governor, Delhi, is pleased to order the transfer/posting of the following I.A.S/UTCS Officers with immediate effect:
S. Name of the Officer Present Posted as Vice
No. post
1. Sh. B.P. Misra Commissioner Secretary Vacant
IAS (AGMU-69) Sales Tax (Finance & Post
Planning).
He will draw
pay against a
vacant post of
OSD in GAD in
the scale of
Rs.5900-6700.
2. Sh.Baleshwar Rai C.M.D. Commissioner Sh.B.P.
IAS (AGMU-70) Delhi Sales Tax Misra
Financial transfered
Corp.
3. Ms. Nita Bali Awaiting C.M.D. Sh. Baleshwar
IAS (AGMU-74) Posting Delhi Rai
Financial transferred
Corpn.
4. Sh.G.K. Dixit -do- Registrar Sh. Anshu
IAS (AGMU-82) -do- Co-operative Prakash
Societies relieved.
5. Sh.H.A. Awasthi Member Secy. Secy. Environ- Relieving
IAS (AGMU-82) OBC Commission ment Forest & Sh.D.S.Negi
Wild Life. of the
He will draw charge of
pay against Secretary
the post of (Environment)
Director Forest & Wild
(Vigilance) Life.
6. Sh.Chaman Lal Addl. G.M. Secy. Language Relieving
IAS (AGMU-82) (Admn.) Deptt. Sh. S.
D.V.B He will draw Rangunathan
pay own scale of the
agnst. a charge of
vacant post Secretary
of OSD in GAD. Language
Deptt.
7. Sh.M.P.Tyagi Awaiting Special
IAS (AGMU-83) Posting Secretary
(PWD) in Land
& Building
Deptt. He will
draw pay against
the post
of Director,
Training & Tech.
Education.
8. Sh.Ashok Bakshi Deputy Director, Vacant
IAS (AGMU-83) Municipal P.F.A. Post.
Commissioner
M.C.D.
9. Sh. M.K.Mishra C.V.O. Spl. Secy, in
IAS (AGMU-84) N.D.M.C. Administrative
Reforms Deptt.
He will draw
pay against
a vacant
post of
OSD in GAD in
his own scale.
10. Sh.A.S.Awasthi Jt. Secy. Labour Vacant
IAS (AGMU-85) (Education) Commissioner post.
11. Ms. Satbir Silas Addl.Director Director of Vacant
I AS (AGMU-86) (Education Education. post.
12. Mrs.Satya Gopal Deputy Deputy Sh.Ashok Bakshi
IAS (AGMU-88) Commissioner Municipal transferred.
New Delhi. Commissioner,
New Delhi.
13. Sh.J.P.Rai Deputy Deputy Sh. Satya Gopal
(UTCS-74) Commissioner, Commissioner, transferred.
Sales Tax New Delhi.
14. Sh.S.L.Bansal G.M. M.D. Vacant post.
(UTCS-74) DSIDC DSCSC He will draw
salary in his
own scale of pay.
15. Sh.S.H. Jafri Joint Director Chief Vacant post.
(UTCS-83) Indian System General
of Medicines. Manager,
D.T.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K.C. Mittal confined his submissions only to the legality of the appointment of the 5th Respondent and he did not advance any argument with reference to other reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the writ petition. The learned counsel sought to leave to withdraw those reliefs reserving the rights of the petitioner to challenge whenever it is necessary.
3. I do not think that any prejudice will be caused to respondents 1 to 4 by reserving the rights of the petitioner to agitate those reliefs at the appropriate forum whenever it is so advised. Ordered accordingly.
4. In view of this the only point that is to be considered is whether the petitioner could challenge the posting of the 5th respondent as Chief General Manager, DTC. The petitioner has sought the relief of certiorari seeking to quash the proceedings dated 09.09.1996 (Annexure P-2) and dated 20.08.1996 (Annexure P-4) which run as under:
OFFICE OF THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT & EXCISE, LAW AND LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF DELHI: OLD SECRETARIAT: DELHI.
STANDING ORDER NO.1
In pursuance of Rules 16 of the Transaction of Business of the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi Rule, 1993, it is directed that the following matters shall be brought to the personal notice of the Transport, Excise and Law Minister, namely:
Transfer/posting of the officers at the level of M.L.O's/Dy. Director/Dy. Gen. Manager and above within the Transport Department.
Transfer/posting of the officers at the level of District Excise Officer and above within the Excise Department. This is within reference to standing order No.1 issued by former Excise Minister, Delhi vide endorsement No.2335 to 2339 dated 27.05.1995.
Transfer/posting of the officers at the level of Under Secretary and above within the Law, Judicial and Legislative Affairs Department.
All Transfer/posting at the level of Manager and above within the DTC.
These orders are in addition to the information/matters already being brought to the notice of Minister by respective Departments.
Sd/-
(RAJINDRA GUPTA
Minister Tpt.,Excise, Law & LA
Letter dated 20.08.1996 reads as under:
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION CMD's SECRETARIATE
No.CMD/96/93 dated the 20th August 96
Shri S.N. Ranjan is being retained by us as Consult assist for the programme of repair, maintenance etc. of all veh. He would be visiting the various depots/workshop etc. to asses requirements and advise in this regard. All RMs and DMs may extend necessary instructions by providing information to Shri Ranjan. Shri Ranjan will be reporting directly to CMD. She initially will work on honorary basis.
Sd/-
(G.S. CHIMA )
Chairman-cum-MD 20.08.96.
5. As I have noticed above at the time of arguments Mr. K.C. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to the appointment of the 5th Respondent at this stage. The relief reads as under:
a) Certiorari quashing impugned orders dated 9.9.96 (Annexure P-2), 20.8.96 (Annexure P-4) and order appointing Shri S.H. Zafri as Chief General Manager, DTC and also the orders granting lease to M/s Propen Gas Co. in respect of lands at Mayur Vihar, Vinod Nagar, Okhla Industrial Area and Hari Nagar belonging to DTC.
b) Mandamus declaring that Respondents 1 and 3 are not competent and authorised to take decisions in the matter of management of respondent No.4 and not competent and authorised to order purchase of high tech buses from Western Countries and that it is the Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.2 alone who have to take decisions in accordance with the guidelines issued and rules made in the matters of purchase of buses.
c) Respondents further be restrained from acting or in any other manner further proceeding on the basis of orders, directions and appointments made by Respondents 1 and 3 in so far as it relates to Respondent No.4.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K.C. Mittal submitted that
there was no appointment order appointing the 5th respondent as Chief General Manager. The Lt. Governor of Delhi, had no authority to pass the order dated 04.06.1997.
7. Mr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner being a Union has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the 5th Respondent as Chief General Manager. The learned counsel now at the time of arguments submitted that the petitioner is seeking the relief of issuance of the writ of quo warranto against the 5th respondent. At this stage it has to be mentioned that though there is no prayer relating to the issue of writ of quo warranto Mr. K.C. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner sought relief of quo warranto on the ground mentioned by him above and the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this court on the facts and circumstances can mould the relief and it is not necessary that there should be any specific prayer mentioning the relief of quo warranto. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner may be given liberty to amend the writ petition if necessary.
8. Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the lt. Governor had the authority to issue the posting order and the Board of the DTC had approved the action and respondents 1 and 2 had acted in accordance with law and there is absolutely no illegality in the appointment of the 5th respondent as the General Manager. Mr. K.C. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the DTC had not kept in mind the recruitment rules relating to the post of Chief General Manager DTC. The method of recruitment provided is as under:
10. Method of recruitment : By promotion failing which
whether by direct transfer on deputation
rectt. or by including short term contract
deputation/transfer from State Transport
and percentage of the Undertakings/Public Transport
vacancies to be filled Corporations and failing
by various methods. both by direct recruitment.
11. In case of recruitment : Promotion: Deputy Chief by
promotion/deputation General Manager with 5
transfer, grades from years service in the grade.
which promotion/
deputation
transfer to be made.
Transfer on deputation:
Suitable officers holding
analogous posts under State/
Central Govt.
Short-term contract: Suitable
officers holding analogous posts
under State Transport
Undertakings/Public Transport
Corporation. (Period of
deputation/contract
ordinarily not exceeding
4 years).
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the qualification prescribed for the post is as under:
7. Educational and other : Essential
qualifications i) Degree of a recognised
required for direct University or equivalent.
recruits. ii) About 15 years experience in &
responsible capacity in a Road
Transport Organisations including
Administrative/Managerial
experience.
iii) Experience of handling Labour.
iv) 5 years experience in Senior
executive position in areas related
to surban mass transportation
system.
(Qualifications relaxable at
Corporation's discretion in case
of candidates otherwise well
qualified).
Desirable:
Post Graduate Diploma/ Degree in
area related to road
Transportation.
10. According to the learned counsel, apart from the competency of the appointment by the appointing authority, the 5th respondent is also not qualified for the post.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents 1 and 2 had not resorted to the method of promotion failing which alone the other methods could be resorted and in as much as that was not done by respondents 1 and 2 and that would vitiate the appointment of the 5th respondent and approval by the Board of DTC to clear the factual matric, it will be useful to refer to the additional affidavit filed by the 4th respondent. The affidavit has signed by Mr. N. Gautam, Secretary, DTC. The affidavit reads as under:
I, N. Gautam son of late Shri Raghubir Singh, Secretary, DTC Board, Delhi Transport Corporation, I.P. Estawte, Ring Road, New Delhi - 110002, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That the deponent is duly authorised and delegated with powers under Section 12 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 read with Road Transport Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971 vide Resolution No.34 of 97 dated 7th March, 1997 to sign all legal documents, agreements and affidavits. The deponent is also able to depose to the facts of the case ascertained from the records of the DTC maintained in due course of business.
2. That in the writ petition the petitioners have primarily challenged the appointment of respondent No.5 as the Chief General Manager in Delhi Transport Corporation.
3. That the deponent has been advised to submit and place on record of the aforesaid writ petition, for effectual adjudication of the points in lis, the history, details and status of the posts of Chief General Manager.
4. That there were three posts as Chief General Manager in DTC designated as follows:-
i) Chief General Manager (Traffic)
ii) Chief General Manager (Technical)
iii) Chief General Manager (Admn.)
Shri Raghu Raj Singh was the Chief General Manager (Administration) and upon his appointment as Chairman-cum- Managing Director of DTC on 18.1.91 the said post fell vacant and was not filled up. Shri A.S. Lakra was appointed as Chief General Manager (Technical) on 4.9.91 and he continues to hold the said post.
5. That in the year 1993 Shri P. Dutta, the then Chief General Manager (Traffic) sought voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the Delhi Transport Corporation. His request was acceded to by the Competent Authority in May 1993.
6. That the DTC Board while considering the request of Shri P. Dutta, the then Chief General Manager (Traffic) vide Resolution No. 79 ofm93 dated 26th May 1993 resolved as under:
"The Board, in view of the position explained in the agenda note, declared one post of CGM (Traffic) and one post of Dy CGM (Traffic) as surplus and accorded approval for the acceptance of Voluntary Retirement applied for S/Shri P.Dutta, CGM (Traffic) and V.K. Narula, Dy. CGM (Traffic) adhering to the rules and regulations of the Scheme in this regard. The request of Shri N.G. Ramnani for voluntary retirement was not acceded to due to the reason that the post of Dy. CGM (Civil) is essential for the smooth working of the Civil Engineering Deptt. Secondly, Shri Ramnani is to retire in October, 1993 i.e. only after 5 months.
2. It was further decided that there would be one post of CGM (Operations) who would be in Charge of Traffic, Legal , Administration and Personnel Departments, etc. The second post of CGM (Technical) would be in charge of Maintenance, Stores, Civil Engineering Departments, etc."
7. That with effect from 29 December 1994 Shri K.S. Singh was deputed by the Ministry of Surface Transport, Govt. of India to join DTC as Chief General Manager (Administration and Traffic) on deputation basis and the period of his posting on deputation ceased on 9.11.1995.
8. That during the tenure of Shri K.S. Singh, efforts were made for filing up the vacant posts in DTC and accordingly the matter was placed before the DTC Board. The Board vide Resolution No.110/95 resolved as under:
"Considering the Government of India's instructions that the posts which are lying vacant for more than a year stand abolished, the Board resolved that the requisite agenda item under reference be referred to the Ministry of Surface Transport for further examination/directions in this regard".
9. That the above Resolution was passed by DTC Board apparently in view of the instructions of the Government of India contained in Memo No.7(7) - E (Coord)/93/ dated 3rd May, 1993 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Expenditure, copy whereof is attached hereto marked as Annexure 'A'. After the aforesaid Resolution passed by the DTC Board, correspondence was exchanged between the DTC and the Ministry of Surface Transport, Govt. of India and later on with the Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi. The said correspondence has already been attached to the writ petition as Annexures R-1 to R-4. The position from the correspondence that emerged was as is reflected in letter dated 01.08.1996 received from the Deputy Secretary (RT), Ministry of Surface Transport was that if the post is held in abeyance and remained unfilled for a period of one year or more, it would have been deemed to have been abolished and if the same was required subsequently the prescribed procedure for creating a new post will have to be followed. In view of the contents of letter dated 01.08.1996, if it were true, all the posts which were lying vacant for more than a year in DTC were deemed to have been abolished.
10. That on 5th August, 1996 the administrative control of DTC was transferred to the Delhi Government from Ministry of Surface Transport.
11. That in response to letter dated 01.08.1996, the DTC again placed the issue before the DTC Board for taking a decision on circular dated 3.5.1993 of Ministry of Finance vide item No.1/97 whereupon the Board resolved vide Resolution No.14/97 dated 14.1.1997 that necessary clarification with regard to interpretation of the circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport, as well as Ministry of Finance, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi.
12. That in response to DTC Board Resolution No.14/97 dated 14.1.1997 certain clarifications were sought from Jt. Secretary, Ministry of Surface Transport, Jt. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India and Jt. Secretary (Finance), Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi vide letters all dated 4.2.1997. Copies of the letters dated 4.2.1997 are attached hereto marked as Annexure B, C and D respectively.
13. That in response to the above correspondence of DTC, the Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Finance, Department of Expenditure vide their letter dated nil received in DTC on 27.2.1997 clarified therein that any post which has remained unfilled for a period exceeding one year has to be deemed to be abolished in terms of this Ministry's Order No.7(7)/E(Coord.)/93 dated 3.5.1993 notwithstanding the mode of recruitment. That is, the said provision is applicable to all posts remaining vacant for more than one year. A reply dated 18.3.1997 was also received in response to DTC's letter dated 4.2.1997 from Ministry of Surface Transport and a copy thereof is attached hereto marked as Annexure 'E'.
That during the period from 7 March 1997 to 5 August 1997 no sitting of DTC Board materialised. On 16th July 1997, however, vide Notification of the Lt. Governor, new DTC Board was constituted and its first sitting took place on 6th August 1997. On 20.08.1997, the matter regarding Status Report was put up in the DTC Board meeting. The issue was finalised in the Board meeting vide item 58/97 and resolved vide Resolution No. 72/97 constituted a committee comprising Secretary (Land and Building), Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, Shri Ram Pal, MLA and Shri Ajay Singh, Directr, DTC Board for short-listing a consultant for ;examining the necessity of posts mentioned in para 12 (except posts mentioned at Sr.No.1 and 2) of item 1/97 Annexure 'A' to the agenda note. Copy of the Resolution No.72/97 is attached hereto marked as Annexure 'F'.
15. That after the transfer of the management of DTC to the Lt. Governor, the Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, operational activities of DTC began to be revitalized and efforts began to augment the DTC fleet of buses and further steps were being undertaken to improve the functioning of DTC.
In the light of the foregoing circumstances and there being no one available for being considered for promotion and the entire situation being in a state of flux, it was considered necessary to post a senior officer to the post of Chief General Manager to effectuate the improvising that was in contemplation in the functioning of DTC. Such posting was also necessary in order to meet with such exigencies that arise. The Govt. of N.C.T. deputed respondent No.5 of DANIC Services on deputation as Chief General Manager on 6.6.97. Respondent No.5 approached Chairman-cum-Managing Director of DTC for joining duty on 13.6.97 and C.M.D, Delhi Transport Corporation accepted the joining report and permitted respondent No.5 to assume the charge of the post of Chief General Manager on the same day.
Deponent
12. The entire circumstances under which the posting order came to be issued by the second respondent are mentioned.
13. The 5th respondent is an IAS Officer and who has been posted in the 4th respondent organisation having regard to the exigencies of the situation. It cannot be said that he does not satisfy the qualification prescribed for the post of General Manager in the recruitment rules, as a matter of fact, that is not the point taken in the writ petition. It is only at the time of argument Mr. K.C. Mittal attempted to spin out an argument.
14. The scope of power of the High Court, the issue of writ of quo warranto and Article 226 of the Constitution is well settled. In P.L. Lakhanpal Vs. Ajit Nath Ray, Chief Justice of India, New Delhi and ors. The Full Bench of 5 Judges of this Court had an occasion to consider this question and therein the writ petitioner prayed for writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment on 25./04.1973 with effect from 26.04.1973 of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Ray as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India. The Full Bench held in para 7 as under:
Before I deal with the points raised, I will state what I understand to be the scope and ambit of a writ of quo warranto. A writ of quo warranto poses a question to the holder of a public office. In plain, English language, the question is "where is your warrant of appointment by which you are holding this office?" In its inception in England such a writ was a writ of right issued on behalf of the Crown requiring a person to show by what authority he exercised his office, franchise, or liberty. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Volume II, describes it as "a legal proceeding that has brought by the state, sovereign, or public officer, has a purpose similar to that of the ancient writ of quo warranto, is usually criminal in form and sometimes authorises the imposition of a fine but is essentially civil in nature and seeks to correct often at the relation or on the complaint of a private person a usurpation, misuser, or non-user of a public office or corporate or public franchise, and may result in judgments of ouster against individuals and of ouster and seizure against corporations".
15. The Full Bench also referred to the statement of law in Halsbury's Laws of England Third Edition Volume II. The Statement of Law in Halsbury's Law of England 4th Edition is found in Volume 1 page 169.
16. The Full Bench ultimately dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner had not made out any case for the issuance of writ of quo warranto. The Patna High Court considered the same question in Dineshwar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and others and R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India (1993)4 SCC 119. In paras 73 and 74 the Supreme Court held:
"Judicial review is concerned with whether the incumbent possessed of qualification for appointment and the manner in which the appointment came to be made or the procedure adopted whether fair, just and reasonable. Exercise of judicial review is to protect the citizen from the abuse of the power etc. by an appropriate Government or department etc. In our considered view granting the compliance of the above power of appointment was conferred on the executive and confided to be exercised wisely. When a candidate was found qualified and eligible and was accordingly appointed by the executive to hold an office as a Member or vice-President or President of a Tribunal, we cannot sit over the choice of the selection, but it be left to the executive to select the personnel as per law or procedure in this behalf. In Shri kumar Prasad case K.N.Srivastava, M.J.S., Legal Remembrancer, Secretary of Law and Justice, Government of Mizoram did not possess the requisite qualifications for appointment as a Judge of the High Court prescribed under Article 217 of the Constitution, namely, that he was not a District Judge for 10 years in State Higher Judicial Service, which is a mandatory requirement for a valid appointment. Therefore, this court declared that he was not qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court and quashed his appointment accordingly. The facts therein are clearly glaring and so the ratio is distinguishable.
Shri Harish Chander, admittedly was the Senior Vice-President at the relevant time. The contention of Shri Thakur of the need to evaluate the comparative merits of Mr. Harish Chander and Mr. Kalyansundaram a seniormost member for appointment as President would not be gone into a public interest litigation. Only in a proceedings initiated by an aggrieved person it may be open to be considered. This writ petition is also not a writ of quo warranto. In service jurisprudence it is settled law that it is for the aggrieved person i.e. non-appointee to assail the legality of the offending action. third party has no locus standi to convass the legality or correctness of the action. Only public law declaration would be made at the behest of the petitioner, a publicspirited person."
17. The legal position is that in order to succeed in the writ of quo warranto, the petitioner should establish the violation of law clearly. In this case the 4th respondent had explained the position in its additional affidavit filed in November 1997. If the appointment had not been made the 4th respondent would have lost the post because that post would stand abolished. The 4th respondent had also tried to fill up the post by promotion and that could not be done. The significant fact is to be noticed is that none of the persons who could be considered to the post of Chief General Manager had come forward with any grievance.
18. The learned counsel Mr. K.C. Mittal referred to the letter of the Chairman of the DTC to Commercial and Secretary, Transport, Government of NCT of Delhi on 07.06.1997. The letter reads as under:
Delhi Transport Corporation
(Government of National Capital
Territory of Delhi)
Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi-2
DO No.PLD-1 (Status Report)/97/44
Dated 7th June 1997
Sub: Filling up the post of Chief General Manager in DTC.
Dear
1. Shri S.H. Jafri, is being posted as Chief General Manager in DTC (copy of the press cutting is available at Annexure 'A'). I would like to place on record the following facts before you in this regard:
A) The post of Chief General Manager in DTC is lying vacant w.e.f. 1.6.1993. A copy of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Chief General Manager in DTC is available at Annexure 'B'. The method of recruitment as per the Recruitment Rules is by way of promotion failing which by transfer on deputation including short term contract from State Transport Undertakings/Public Transport Corporations and failing both by direct recruitment.
B) As a departure of the existing procedures, Shri K.S. Singh, of DANI Civil Services was posted as Chief General Manager in DTC w.e.f. 28.12.1994. However,, he was reverted to his parent cadre with effect on 9.11.1995 itself. While considering regularisation of his case, the Board vide its resolution No.38/96 dated 23.3.1996 has resolved as under:
"Considering the peculiar circumstances in which the services of Shri K.S. Singh were utilised in DTC for the period 28.12.1994 to 9.11.1995 and further considering the fact that he has actually been paid salary on provisional basis as per DPC received from the office of Sales-tax, New Delhi, for the said period, the Board resolved to regularise the period of duty.
1. The Board also decided that the salaries and wages already paid to him be treated as final and no further allowance like deputation allowance, etc. be entertained by the Corporation.
3. The Board also resolved that the regularisation of services in the instant case shall not be considered as a precedent."
In the light of above elucidations, it appears that the post of Chief General Manager in DTC is to be filled up by way of promotion in the first instance following the set procedures and the competent authority to take decision in this regard in the Board of Directors.
The Government orders in regard to Shri Jafri need to be reconciled with the position that as per the R.T.C. Act, DTC is a statutorily established autonomous body and the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs and business of Corporation rests with the Board of Directors as per Section (5) of the same Act and that further under Section 14(2) the Corporation may appoint such other officers and employees as it considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. The Recruitment Rules (copy enclosed) were ratified by the Board and must normally be followed else they must be amended by the Board itself.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Chairman himself had referred to the fact that the posting of the 5th respondent was not in accordance with law. The fact that the Board of the Delhi Transport Corporation had accorded the ex post facto approval of the posting of the 5th respondent as Chief General Manager on deputation basis on 13.06.1997 for a period of two years in its meeting held on the 28th of August 1997 is not disputed. Mr. K.C. Mittal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that would not cure the initial posting done by the second respondent. Once the authority acts for the benefit of the public and in the interest of a particular organisation and while doing so makes an appointment of a suitable person such a course adopted by the public authority is not amenable to the writ of quo warranto.
20. Therefore, when there is no impediment in law to the Board giving ex post facto approval to the post or the appointment of the 5th respondent as Chief Manager (Administration/Operation) what is done by respondents 1 and 2 cannot be challenged.
In this view, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
