Rahul Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13393 MP

                                                      1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT INDORE
                                                  BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                     &
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                            ON THE 17 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                           WRIT APPEAL No. 1178 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAHUL JAIN S/O SHRI AMOLAKCHAND JAIN, AGED
                          ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DPM R/O LN CITY
                          GANDHI NAGAR DISTT. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                            .....APPELLANT
                          (SHRI ABHISHEK TUGNAWAT, ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH CHIEF
                                SECRETARY GOVT. OF M.P. PUBLIC HEALTH AND
                                FAMILY   WELFAR    DEPARTMENT      BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    MISSION DIRECTOR NHM 8, ARERA HILLS
                                GRAMIN VIKAS BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    HEALTH COMMISSIONER SANCHNALAYA AND
                                HEALTH SERVICES BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    REGIONAL      DIRECTOR HEALTH   SERVICES
                                INDORE DIVISION INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH         OFFICER
                                SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          6.    COLLECTOR SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          7.    LALSINGH PARMAR S/O KARAN SINGH PARMAR,
                                AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ICE
                                CONSULTANT   OPP    HARSHIT   STD   PCO
                                HARAYPURA SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/18/2023
5:46:03 PM
                                                               2
                                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                          (NONE)

                                This appeal coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SUSHRUT
                          ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:
                                                               ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

I n this appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the appellant has assailed the order date 14.06.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 2590/2022 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner had filed the writ petition

challenging the appointment of Respondent No.7 as a Consultant by way of a contract for a period of three years. Thereby, respondent No. 7 was engaged as I.E.C. Consultant, District Shajapur under RCH- 11 Project vide letter No. 17222 dated 28.12.2006 on an honorarium of Rs. 12,000/- per month. Vide order dated 13.12.2011, the contract was terminated which he challenged by way of W.P. No. 237 of 2012 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.04.2017. The grievance of the petitioner is that now again respondent No.7 has been engaged on the same post vide order dated 21.06.2016 for the period of three years.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had filed writ petition for issuance of the writ of quo warranto and contended that any private person can file a petition for issuance of writ of quo warranto to challenge the legality of a public office appointment, even if the person has no personal interest in the appointment or is not directly affected by it. To buttress his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2022) 5 SCC 179. Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/18/2023 5:46:03 PM

4. Heard and perused the record.

5. It is settled principle of law that an Appellate Court cannot travel beyond the pleadings and the submission putforth by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced because no averments were made in the writ petition stating that the writ petition was filed asking relief of writ of quo warranto. In case of Prakash vs. State of M.P. reported in 2011 (3) MPLJ 103 and Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand reported in 2020 (3) MPLJ 433, it has been held that a ground which is not raised by way of express pleadings or raised by way of arguments and not considered by the learned Single Judge cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the writ appeal.

6. Consequently, in light of the settled law, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Singe Judge, therefore, this appeal being bereft of merits and substance is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.

                            (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                                       (PRANAY VERMA)
                                     JUDGE                                                  JUDGE
                          Vatan




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/18/2023
5:46:03 PM