Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Agrahari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 30488 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SANJEEV AGRAHARI S/O LATE KAILASH CHAND, AGED
ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB 1862
TAMRAKAR MOHALLA SHEETLA MATI WARD
KANCHGHAR ROAD JABALPUR AT PRESENT R/O B-2
SUKHSAGAR BLUE GWARIGHAT DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAMESHWAR SINGH THAKUR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, JABALPUR
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. COLLECTOR, JABALPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. T E H S I L D A R , TEHSIL JABALPUR RANJHI,
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SMT. DEEPTI AGRAHARI W/O SHRI RAJEEV
AGRAHARI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER POSTED
IN GOVT. H.S.S. MAJHAULI DISTRICT JABALPUR
R/O 1862, TAMRAKAR MOHALLA SHEETLA MAI
WARD, GHAMAPUR, JABALPUR DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI DEEPAK SAHU - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
(SHRI RAM NARAYAN TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 6)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the appointment of respondent no. 6 as
'Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak' under the quota meant for Economically Weaker
Section.
Petitioner's contention is that the certificate issued in favour of the
petitioner as contained in Annexure P-2 by the Tehsildar, Jabalpur on 7/10/2022
is forged. In support of the contention, it is submitted that petitioner husband is
having his own house and plot, yet he has arbitrarily shown himself to be a
tenant in terms of the agreement filed along with Annexure P-6.
It is submitted that husband of respondent no. 6 Shri Rajeev Agrahari is
showing himself to be a tenant whereas he is in possession of a plot and a
house and in support, encloses a copy of the Will of one Shri Baijnath Prasad
Gupta and Smt. Laxmi Bai w/o Late Shri Kailash Chandra Gupta along with
certain municipal receipts.
He places reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Manoj
Mishra Vs. Union of India and others in W.P. (C) No. 10461/2020 decided
on 22nd July, 2022 and referring to para 21, 22 and 23, it is submitted that court
should entertain this petition.
He also places reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat and others (2022) 5 SCC
179.
Shri Ram Narayan Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 in his
turn submits that petitioner is a real brother-in-law of respondent no. 6. He is
trying to blackmail the respondent no. 6 and he has no locus to file this petition.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Manoj Mishra
(supra), it is evident that it is held by the Delhi High Court in para 21 that the
burden of establishing malafides is very heavy on the person who alleges it.
Petitioner's contention is that though Tehsildar, Ranjhi has wrongly
issued a certificate in favour of the private respondent but Tehsildar, Ranjhi has
not been impleaded in his personal capacity as a party.
The Division Bench of the High Court relying on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply
& Drainage Board Employees' Association (2006) 11 SCC 731 has noted
that the court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Government in the
choice of the person to be appointed as long as the person chosen possesses
the prescribed qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment.
Similarly placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
University of Mysore and another Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and another
(1964) 4 SCR 575 in which the conditions under which the writ of Quo
Warranto could be issued is discussed and it is held that "before a citizen can
claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy the court, inter alia, that the office
in question is a public office and is held by usurper without legal authority, and
that necessarily leads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the said
alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not."
Similarly, in Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha Vs.
DhobeiSahoo and others (2014) 1 SCC 161, the Supreme Court says that
the basic purpose of writ of quo warranto is to confer jurisdiction on the
constitutional court to see that a public office is not held by usurper without any
legal authority.
Similarly, in case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra), reliance is placed
on para 19 to say that holding of post of Vice Chancellor cannot be said to be
holding a post of Public Office.
However, fact of the matter is that there is no dispute that private
respondent is holding a public office but issue is that unless and until the EWS
certificate is set aside by the competent authority after conducting a thorough
enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner or anybody else, there cannot
be any indulgence and merely standing before the court to seek writ of quo
warranto without demonstrating that how the certificate issued by the Tehsildar
as contained in Annexure P-2 is illegal or arbitrary and the petitioner fulfils the
conditions as enumerated in the certificate Annexure P-2, therefore, there being
no material to show that there is any illegality in the certificate Annexure P-2, no
indulgence can be shown at the instance of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed.
Petitioner will bear the cost of this litigation for the private respondent as
well which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
vy
VAIBHAV
YEOLEKAR
2024.05.06
14:41:47 +05'30'
