Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhishek Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 30 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 13875 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ABHISHEK KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE SHRI DHANANJAY
PRASAD SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SOCIAL WORKER / PRIVATE JOB, R/O 748, NEW
JAGDAMBA COLONY, P.S. VIJAY NAGAR, RAJA
AGRASEN WARD, DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ROHAN HARNE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA
PRADESH VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, WATER
RESOURCE DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. UNDER SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE
D EPARTM EN T VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHRISH KUMAR MISHRA S/O NOT MENTIONED,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ENGINEER IN CHIEF
OFFICE AT WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,
NARMADA BHAWAN, TULSI NAGAR, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI GIRISH KEKRE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.1 TO 3)
(SHRI SHASHANK SHEKHAR - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI PREVEEN
DUBEY - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 5/31/2024
12:56:54 PM
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for issuance of writ of quo warranto against respondent No.4 who was
given the charge of the post of Engineer-in-Chief after his retirement.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 does not
have the requisite qualifications to hold the charge of the post of Engineer-in-
Chief. He further submits that there are rules i.e. Madhya Pradesh Contractual
Appointment to Civil Post Rules, 2017, which provides as to in what manner
the contract appointment should be made and that rules in the present case have
not been followed, therefore, the appointment of respondent No.4 is illegal.
3. However, the counsel appearing for the respondents have jointly raised
objection with regard to maintainability of the petition on the ground that the
writ of quo warranto can be issued only against the appointment made
substantively or against a person who is substantively appointed on a particular
post. But according to them, the present petition is not maintainable for the
reason that the appointment of respondent No.4 is not substantively on the post
of Engineer-in-Chief, but his appointment is temporarily on contract basis for a
particular period. Therefore, according to them, in view of the judgment
reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 (I) parties being Retd. Armed Forces
Medical Association and others Vs. Union of India and others and the
order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.11298 of 2021
(Arun Singh Chouhan Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.), this petition is not
maintainable. As such, it can be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
They submit that apart from that, a similar petition i.e. W.P. No.7662 of 2024
(Pramod Kumar Khare Vs. State of M.P. and others) has already been
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.04.2024, therefore, the present
petition is also liable to be dismissed.
4. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and the
order passed in W.P. No.7662 of 2024, I am not inclined to entertain the
petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
ac/-
