Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shailesh Shivhare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 October, 2023

Author: Sanjay Dwivedi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 10TH OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION NO. 21460 OF 2021

BETWEEN:-

SHAILESH SHIVHARE S/O SHRI PRABHU DAYAL
SHIVHARE, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, BUS
OPERATOR, R/O BALAGANJ, HOSHANGABAD,
(M.P.).

. .....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI H.C. KOHLI AND SHRI ASHISH RAWAT - ADVOCATES)

AND

1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(M.P.).

2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, M.P.,
MOTIMAHAL, GWALIOR, M.P.

3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT
AUTHORITY/REGIONAL DEPUTY
TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER GWALIOR,
CHAMBAL SAMBHAG, DISTRICT GWALIOR
(M.P.).

4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.).

5. M/S R.J. FOUZDAR BUS SERVICE THROUGH
MANAGING PARTNER RAKESH FOUZDAR,
SON OF LATE J.D. FOUZDAR, AGED ABOUT
65 YEARS, BUS OPERATOR, R/O
BABGANINJ, HOSHANGABAD (M.P.).

.....RESPONDENTS
2

(FOR THE RESPONDENTS/STATE - SWAPNIL
GANGULI - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
(FOR INTERVENORS - BRIJESH KUMAR DUBEY,
SHRI RAJEEV SHRIVASTAVA AND SHRI SUBODH
KUMAR PANDEY - ADVOCATES)
................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 22/06/2023
Pronounced on : 10/10/2023
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:

ORDER

This is one of the petitions listed alongwith other connected batch of petitions involving same question and seeking quashing of resolution dated 03.10.2020 delegating powers to all Secretaries, Additional Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries of Regional Transport Authority (in short "RTA") for whole region of the Madhya Pradesh to consider the application for grant of permit in their respective regions.

2. The challenge is basically made on the ground that the said decision/resolution is contrary to the provisions of section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988"). The decision is also contrary to the law laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in number of cases and as such it is sought to be quashed. In pursuance to the said resolution, the order passed on 12.08.2021 granting temporary permit is also sought to be quashed in this petition.

3. Although there are different routes for which also temporary permits have been granted and orders granting temporary permit for different routes are also under challenge in other petitions, but since the

issue involved in all the cases are common, therefore they have been heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from W.P. No.21460/2021 for proper adjudication of the issue involved.

4. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is challenging the validity of temporary permit granted to the respondent no.5 contending that the same has been issued by an authority not having competence to do so. The petitioner has raised the grievance saying that the temporary permit got issued in favour of respondent no.5 by an incompetent authority causing heavy loss to the petitioner, who is holding regular and temporary permit for the routes in question.

5. As per the facts of the case, the State Government vide order dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure-P/2), exercising powers provided under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 68 of the Act of 1988, empowered the Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner, Gwalior, Chambal Division to hold the charge of the same post also for Indore, Ujjain, Sagar, Jabalpur, Rewa, Shahdol and also directed that Shri Arun Kumar Singh Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner will also act as Regional Transport Authority of the areas which are under his jurisdiction.

6. Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Regional Transport Authority and Regional Deputy Transport Commissioner, respondent no.3 herein, passed a resolution on 03.10.2020 (Annexure P/3) delegating powers to all the Secretaries, Additional Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries to issue/grant permit exercising powers as are vested with the Regional Transport Authority.

7. The respondent No.5 moved an application for grant of temporary

permit for the period from 26.08.2021 to 30.09.2021. The permit was issued on 12.08.2021 and order in that regard was also issued in favour of respondent no.5 by the Secretary, which are on record as Annexures- P/6 and P/7.

8. The petitioner is also questioning the conduct of the respondent No.5 saying that he filed a petition before the High Court i.e. W.P. No.5480/2021 questioning the competency and powers of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and also got an interim order on 24.03.2021 restraining the authority not to allow any application for grant of temporary permit, although liberty was granted that fresh applications can be considered by the competent authority.

9. As per the petitioner, the resolution dated 03.10.2020 (Annexure- P/3) whereby additional charge has been handed over that too by an executive order is per se illegal and de hors the provisions of section 68 of the Act of 1988. As per section 68, the State Government by way of notification in the Official Gazette constitute a State Transport Authority to exercise and discharge the powers and functions of Regional Transport Authority. As per the petitioner, when section 68 of the Act of 1988 provides appointment of Regional Transport Authority by way of notification then no other authority can exercise such powers and that powers even cannot be delegated to any other authority. According to the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by this Court in case of Girja Shankar Shukla VS. Sub-Divisional Officer, Harda and Others reported in 1973 MPLJ 411, a person holding the charge of Regional Transport Authority cannot discharge the statutory function and the powers vested with the RTA cannot be sub-delegated and as such temporary permit issued in favour of respondent No.5, on the words of the petitioner, is without jurisdiction.

10. The petitioner has also contended that respondent No.3 does not hold the post substantively, therefore he cannot perform the statutory function vested in RTA. As per the petitioner, the order dated 01.10.2020 unless published in the State Gazette by way of notification is nothing but an executive order and does not have any legal sanctity, therefore the same is illegal and by virtue of that, powers cannot be delegated. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered in Sudarshan Transport Services Private Ltd. Vs. Teh S.T.A.A.M.P. reported in 1963 MPLJ note 121, in which it is observed by the Supreme Court that notification appointing RTA should be fully and actually published and any act done by the RTA without notification is without jurisdiction.

11. The respondents/State have filed reply in one of the connected petition i.e. W.P.No.16966/2022 (Laxman Santwani Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others) wherein they have taken a stand that the fact that the respondent No.4 has been given additional charge of Regional Deputy Transport Commissioner is not correct. As per the respondent/State, the Government has passed the order dated 08.12.2021 exercising powers provided under sub section (1) of section 68 of the Act of 1988 appointing and authorizing respondent no.4 to exercise the powers of RTA and that order is Annexure-R/1.

12. As per the State, the posts of transport department are governed by the Madhya Pradesh Transport Department (Gazette Service Recruitment Rules, 2011) (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2011") and as per Rule 6 of the Rules of 2011, appointment on the post mentioned in Schedule-1 can also be made by transfer or deputation of such persons who hold the post in substantive capacity in such service as may be specified by the State Government in this behalf. As per

Schedule-1 appended with the Rules of 2011, ten posts of Regional Deputy Transport Commissioner are classified from the officers of Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Services. As per entry No.6 of Schedule-2, 30% equal to 3 posts of Regional Deputy Transport Commissioner can be filled up by appointment and deputation of Joint Collector rank from the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Services.

13. As per the State, respondent no.4 is substantively holding the post of Joint Collector in his parent department (GAD) and is a member of State Administrative Services, therefore he is fully competent for being appointed on the post of Regional Deputy Transport Commissioner and vide order dated 16.08.2021, the State Government posted the respondent No.4 as Regional Deputy Transport Commissioner and no additional charge was given to him but his appointment was substantively on the post of Regional Deputy Transport Commissioner and by way of notification dated 08.12.2021, the State Government conferred the powers to Regional Transport Authority. The delegation of powers, according to the State, by way of notification/appointment of transport authorities, is also provided under rules 64, 65 and 67 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. According to the State, the appointment of respondent No.4 on the post of Regional Deputy Transport Commissioner vide order dated 16.08.2021 and conferring powers on him vide order dated 08.12.2021 are strictly in conformity with the statutory provisions of law. As per the State, Rule 246 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 empowers the Deputy Transport Commissioner to exercise the powers conferred under the Act and further it provides that Additional Regional Transport Officer and Assistant Regional Transport Officer shall exercise the powers conferred under the Act or under the Rules or under any other enactment in force. The respondents/State have

contended in their reply that while deciding W.P.No.4001/2017 vide order dated 21.12.2017 and thereafter decision of Division Bench ignoring the respective Rules of 2011 and 1994 and gazette notification dated 05.11.2015 are therefore per-incurium and do not have any binding effect. The State on the contrary relied upon the decision passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.806/2019 and submitted that the Division Bench has considered the issued raised in the present petition and writ appeal was finally dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2019. As per the State, the case law on which the petitioner is relying upon i.e. Girja Shankar Shukla (supra) is not applicable in the present case.

14. Respondents/State have also filed an additional return taking stand therein that Shri Suneel Kumar Shukla was substantively holding the post of Deputy Commissioner, Land Record, Jabalpur vide order dated 4th February, 2019 (Annexure R/8) and he was transferred on deputation to Transport Department as Regional Transport Officer, Chhindwara and vide order dated 30th December, 2019 (Annexure R/9) he was granted senior grade pay scale and as such he came at par with that of Deputy Collector as the pay scale which was being granted to Shri Suneel Kumar Shukla was the pay scale of Joint Collector and as such vide order dated 13th January, 2023 (Annexure R/10) Shri Suneel Kumar Shukla was transferred to Jabalpur on the post of Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner. The respondents have submitted that the appointment of Shri Suneel Kumar Shukla was by way of deputation and in the Recruitment Rules also the post of Deputy Commissioner can be filled up by way of deputation i.e. one of the modes of recruitment.

15. Heard rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The issue raised in this petition is whether the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) at present working without valid

appointment as prescribed under Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Sub-Section (1) of Section 68 of the Act of 1988 provides as under:-

"68. Transport Authorities.--(1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute for the State a State Transport Authority to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in sub-section (3), and shall in like manner constitute Regional Transport Authorities to exercise and discharge throughout such areas (in this Chapter referred to as regions) as may be specified in the notification, in respect of each Regional Transport Authority; the powers and functions conferred by or under this Chapter on such Authorities: Provided that in the Union territories, the Administrator may abstain from constituting any Regional Transport Authority."

16. As per the petitioner, there is no notification issued in the official gazette for appointing RTA and therefore the power of RTA discharging by the officer only in pursuance to the resolution is illegal and without any competence. The another issue as has been raised by the petitioner is that by way of resolution dated 03.10.2020 the power cannot be delegated to issue temporary permit in view of the Division Bench judgment delivered in the case of Girja Shankar Shukla (supra). Although the State has come up with the stand that the issue involved in this case has already been decided by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 806/2019 - Sheikh Mohd. Anees vs. State of M.P. and others (reported in 2019 (3) MPLJ 656) alongwith other connected writ appeals and also taken a stand that the Indore Bench in W.P. No. 1402/2021 - Mohd. Farhan Khan vs. State of M.P. and others decided on 6th August, 2021 alongwith other connected writ petitions dismissed the petitions on the ground of locus granting opportunity to the petitioners to challenge the issuance of temporary permit by filing revision under Section 90 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

17. Perusal of order of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Sheikh Mohd. Anees (supra) reveals that the Division Bench considered the said aspect as per the facts and circumstances placed before them in which the Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner was given additional charge of Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner of Bhopal, Sagar, Rewa, Shahdol and Jabalpur Division and later on respondent No. 4 was given the proforma promotion and was posted as Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of locus standi holding that the promotion of respondent No. 4 cannot be questioned in a petition involving validity of grant of temporary permit. The appointment of respondent No. 4 can be assailed in a petition seeking a writ of quo- warranto.

18. In the case at hand, Shri Arun Kumar Singh, who was a Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner and Regional Transport Authority, Indore, Ujjain, Bhopal, Narmadapuram, Sagar, Jabalpur, Rewa and Shahdol passed a resolution on 03.10.2020 delegating powers to all the Sachivs (Secretaries), Additional Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries to issue/grant permit exercising powers as are vested with the Regional Transport Authority. The challenge is made by the petitioner saying that such delegation of power is not permissible and is illegal in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Girja Shankar Shukla (supra), but here in the present case Suneel Kumar Shukla was appointed as Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner, Jabalpur and was authorized to perform the duties as Regional Transport Authority in view of Proviso attached to sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act of 1988.

19. According to the respondents/State, as per the procedure prescribed in the relevant rules of recruitment, as specified in the reply itself, three posts of Regional Deputy Transport Commissioner were to be filled up by appointment and deputation of the officers of the rank of Joint Collector. Shri Suneel Kumar Shukla vide order dated 30 th December, 2019 was granted senior pay scale which was equivalent to the post of Joint Collector and was posted as Regional Transport Authority, Chhindwara vide order dated 4 th February, 2019. The General Administration Department also issued clarification on 13 th January, 2023 (Annexure R/10) clarifying that a person on deputation can be sent and posted on another post after granting promotion without calling him back in the parent department.

20. The respondents have taken a stand that in view of Proviso attached to sub-Section (2) of Section 68 of the Act of 1988, the Regional Transport Authority was constituted by giving appointment to Shri Suneel Kumar Shukla and he is performing the duties, issuing temporary permit and there is nothing illegal. The Division Bench in the case of Sheikh Mohd. Anees (supra) has considered this aspect that the promotion of an employee cannot be assailed in a writ petition challenging the validity of grant of permit. The Division Bench has observed that no such challenge can be made in a writ petition unless writ of quo-warranto is claimed. The Division Bench has also observed that Section 87, which deals with the temporary permit, nowhere provides that the opportunity of hearing can be assailed by filing revision under Section 90 of the Act of 1988. Therefore, on the ground of locus also petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has no right to challenge the temporary permit issued in favour of respondent No. 5/private respondent.

21. The Indore bench in the case of Mohd. Farhan Khan (supra) has already decided that the petitioner has no locus to file a writ petition objecting grant of temporary permit because this issue has already been decided by the High Court in the case of Sattar Khan vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority (WP No. 6889/2020 decided on 19.03.2020) and dismissed the petition. The view of the Indore Bench in regard to locus of the petitioner is as under:-

"Issue No. 3 - Locus of the petitioner:

So far as the issue of locus of the petitioner i.e. existing permit holder in objecting to the grant of temporary permit is concerned, this Court in the case of Sattar Khan Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority (W.P. No. 6889/2020 decided on 19.3.2020) has held that the existing transporter or permit holder has no locus to raise an objection in the application submitted for grant of temporary permit, therefore, I have no reason to take a different view.

Shri Amit S. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has raised an alternative submission that even if it is held that the petitioner being an existing operator has no locus to object, but he has locus to challenge the temporary permit by way of filing of revision or by way of a writ petition alleging illegality in the permit. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the five Judges Bench of Kerala High Court and Calcutta High Court.

So far as the right of revision is concerned, it is settled law that it is a statutory right given under the statute. U/s 90 of the MV Act, the STAT may or on an application made to it call for a record of the case in which the order has been made by the Transport Authority or STA or RTA against which no appeal lies and if it appears that the impugned order made by the authority is improper or illegal, the STAT may pass such order in relation to the case as it deems fit. This right of revision has not been restrained to any person. The STAT may entertain an application made to it calling upon the legality and validity of the order passed by the STA or RTA, therefore, any person can

prefer a revision. The right u/s 89 of the MV Actis also available to any person, but he should be aggrieved by the eventuality mentioned in sub-clause (a) to (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 89. Therefore, the existing permit holder who has a grievance against the grantof temporary permit has no right to file an appeal u/s89 because no appeal lies against the grant of the permit. An appeal lies only on refusal to grant the permit or any condition attached to the permit granted to him. Therefore, the petitioner has a right to file a revision against the order passed by the STA or RTA if the challenge is based on the perceived irregularity and illegal act or the conduct of the Transport Authority within the scope of revisional power. Hence, this allowed only to the extent that the STAT has wrongly held that the petitioner has no locus to file a revision against the grant of permit."

22. There are number of other decisions in which the High Court has observed that issuance of temporary permit cannot be assailed by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only for the reason that the statutory power of revision is available.

23. Considering the consistent view of the High Court about the locus of the petitioner to challenge the issuance of temporary permit and also the posting of private respondent on a particular post, I do not find that there is any need to deviate from the view already taken.

24. The Division Bench in the case of Sheikh Mohd. Anees (supra) has also dealt with the similar issue as is being raised by the petitioner in this petition. The Division Bench considered the fact with regard to an officer holding the post of Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner. Here in this case, Shri Suneel Kumar Shukla holding the post of Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner was granted the senior pay scale that was equivalent to the post of Joint Collector, as such granted proforma promotion and was posted and given charge of Regional

Transport Authority of Jabalpur Division that too by virtue of a notification issued by the State Government on 5 th November, 2015 under Section 68(2) read with sub-Section (1) and proviso attached thereto constituting single member Regional Transport Authority giving power to Regional Deputy Transport Commissioner, Jabalpur Division and as such the said procedure was proper and there is no illegality and it can also not be considered to be a delegation of power as has been held in the case of Girja Shanker Shukla (supra). The Division Bench in the case of Sheikh Mohd. Anees has also considered the validity of the notification dated 05.11.2015 which is filed by the respondents as Annexure R/5 whereby the State Government constituted single member Regional Transport Authority. The Division Bench dealing with the said issue has held as under:-

"11. To appreciate the aforesaid rival contentions in regard to the said issue it is apposite to refer the provisions of Section 68(1) of the Act which reads as under:

"68. Transport Authorities - (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette constitute for the State and State Transport Authority to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in subsection (3), and shall in like manner constitute Regional Transport Authorities to exercise and discharge throughout such areas (in this Chapter referred to as regions) as may be specified in the notification, in respect of each Regional Transport Authority; the powers and functions conferred by or under this Chapter on such Authorities : Provided that in the Union Territories, the Administrator may abstain from constituting any Regional Authority."

A plain reading of the provisions shows that the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette can constitute Regional Transport Authority to

exercise and discharge functions throughout the areas specified in the notification or for the entire State.

12. Upon perusal of the record we have noted that the respondent No.4 was promoted as Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner by order dated 26-8-2015 granting him proforma promotion on the said post with effect from 01-12-2015 and thereafter he was posted on the vacant post of Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner (Narmadapuram) Hoshangabad Division. The respondents have produced before us the gazette notification dated 5-11-2015 issued in exercise of powers conferred by subsection (1) read with second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act, by which the State Government has constituted a Single Member Regional Transport Authority for discharge of functions and fixing the responsibility of work within the time-limit, instead of the earlier Multi- members Regional Transport Authorities. By the said notification the Regional Transport Authority was specified in Column (2) of the Schedule and was empowered to exercise and discharge the powers and functions throughout the related areas and districts conferred under the said Act or any other Act for the areas specified in column (3) including the corresponding districts specified in Column (4) of the said Schedule and the Headquarters specified in column (5) thereof.

13. Thus, the respondent No.4 who was promoted as Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner and was posted in Sagar and Narmadapuram (Hoshangabad) Division became the Regional Transport Authority by virtue of the Gazette Notification dated 5-11-2015 to exercise the powers in relation to the areas specified in respect of Sagar and Narmadapuram (Hoshangabad) Divisions and in view of the Gazette Notification dated 5-11-2015, we are of the considered view, that the respondent No.4 was authorized to act in the capacity of Regional Transport Authority under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act and there is no illegality in the permits granted by him. In the case of Surendra Tanwani (supra) before the learned Single Judge, the Gazette Notification dated 5-11-2015 issued under Section 68 of the Act authorising Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner to act in the capacity of Regional Transport Authority was not brought to the notice of the Court."

The Division Bench has further considered the issue with regard to locus of the petitioner and observed as under:-

"14. As regards the third issue, it has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the learned Single Judge has erroneously dismissed the petition on the ground that they have no locus standi to question the promotion of the respondent No.4 on the post of Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner. In the present appeals admittedly, the appellants/writ petitioners are bus operator. The respondent No.4 who was working as Regional Transport Officer in the Transport Department, was granted proforma promotion with effect from 01-12-2014 and was posted as Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner. Learned counsel for the State urged that his case was considered in the review departmental promotion committee and thereafter, he was promoted by granting proforma promotion with a retrospective date. The present appellants are not employees of the Transport Department. They are bus operators and they cannot question the legality and validity of a promotion order of an employee of the Department in a writ petition challenging grant of permit to a third person. The instant writ petitions were not preferred for issuance of a writ of quo warranto or pro bono publico."

25. Considering the view taken by the Single Bench as well as Division Bench dealing with the similar issue, this Court is not inclined to deviate from the view already taken and settled. Accordingly, this petition with regard to challenge of competency of the authority issuing temporary permit has no legal substance and is hereby dismissed. The issue with regard to locus of the petitioner as opposed by the respondents and also by the intervenor is also maintained and the petition is dismissed on this count also, although liberty is still open to the petitioner to challenge any permit, if so requires, available under the statute.

26. Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the person holding the substantive post in the department can only be given the charge. According to the petitioner, Shri Suneel Kumar Shukla was not holding the substantive post in the department and was a Deputy Commissioner, Land Record came on deputation as a Regional Transport Authority and therefore he cannot be given the charge of the post of Regional Transport Authority. Although Shri Ganguli appearing for the respondents relied upon the stand taken in the return and also in additional return filed by them. He submitted that under the relevant Rules dealing with the service conditions of Transport Department, the post of Regional Deputy Transport Commissioner can be filled by direct recruitment or on deputation from the officers of Joint Collector rank. He has filed document, the Schedule appended to the Rules showing that 10 posts of Regional Deputy Transport Commissioner are sanctioned out of which 07 posts are filled up through direct recruitment and 03 from deputation from the officers holding the equal post of the rank of Joint Collector. Shri Ganguli submitted that Shri Suneel Kumar Shukla vide order dated 30th December, 2019 granted senior grade pay scale to the tune of Rs. 15,600-39,100 + 6600 and that pay scale is equal to that of the pay scale of Joint Collector and GAD vide order dated 13 th January, 2023 (Annexure R/10) clarified the position that Shri Shukla holding the post of Regional Transport Officer without calling him back or repatriating to the parent department can be posted in the department where he is on deputation and as such any order passed in his favour giving him charge of the post of Regional Transport Authority, the same can be done and there is no illegality in it. Shri Ganguli also submitted that when the post of Regional Transport Authority can be filled up by way of promotion and a notification issued in this regard on 05.11.2015

constituting single member Regional Transport Authority i.e. Regional Deputy Transport Commissioner, Jabalpur Division and giving charge of some other Division is not illegal.

27. I am convinced with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents because this position was also involved before the Division in the case of Sheikh Mohd. Anees (supra) where-under proforma promotion was granted to respondent No.4 whose appointment was challenged and notification dated 05.11.2015 was also considered by the Division Bench in the said case also. Thus, once the similar situation has already been dealt with by the Division Bench disapproving the challenge and dismissing the petition, no reasons are existing in the present case to deviate with the view already taken.

28. Ex-consequentia, this petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE

rk/Raghvendra RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA 2023.10.11 14:41:43 +05'30'