Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dheeraj Singh Thakur vs Union Of India on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30512
1 W.A.No.86/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
WRIT APPEAL No. 86 of 2025
DHEERAJ SINGH THAKUR AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Smt. Shobha Menon - Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Choubey -
Advocate for Appellants.
Shri Ishan Soni - Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Smt. Kanak Gaharwar - Advocate for Respondent No.4.
..........................................................................................
Reserved on :07.07.2025
Pronounced on :23.07.2025
............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
Per: Vinay Saraf, J.
1. By taking exception to the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5943/2022 whereby the writ petition filed
by the present appellants was dismissed, the appellants have preferred the
instant intra-court appeal under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.
2. The appellants are working as Security Guards on contractual basis
through security agencies and are rendering their services to respondent
no.4/Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre (in short "BMHRC")
since 2002. BMHRC is an Institute of Indian Council of Medical Research
(in short "ICMR")
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30512
3. A policy decision was taken by ICMR in respect of hiring of
security services for ICMR Institutes/Headquarters and in furtherance of
the policy decision an office order was issued by Deputy Director General
(Admn.) on 22.02.2022; whereby keeping in view of the security threats
and bio hazards, visit of foreign delegates and VVIP, the ICMR
Headquarters/Institutes/Centres have been classified in two categories; (i)
High Priority Security Cover (ii) Moderate Security Cover. BMHRC,
Bhopal has been categorized as High Priority Security Cover and as per the
office order for the premises of High Priority Security Cover, it is directed
to engage the security agencies enlisted by the Director General of
Resettlement (DGR) through GeM portal with 100% staff from Ex-service
or Ex-paramilitary persons.
4. Office order dated 22.02.2022 was challenged by the appellants
along with other petitioners in Writ Petition No.5943/2022 mainly on the
ground that ICMR has erroneously assumed the threats and directed to
engage the security agencies enlisted by DGR and the decision to
mandatorily engage the services of security agencies with staff of Ex-
service or Ex-paramilitary persons is arbitrary, illegal and unjust, which
would have cascading impact on appellants as they have been engaged as
Security Guards from inception and they are performing their duties
successfully without complaint. The order is also challenged on the ground
that it is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.
5. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 10.12.2024
dismissed the petition by holding that the scope of judicial review of
government policy is very limited and the Courts cannot act as an appellate
authority to examine the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a
policy. It is further held that hiring of men power does not amount to
capital expenditure and, therefore, the limit prescribed in Appendix-II to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30512
incur capital expenditure, is not relevant for the case in hand. It is also
recorded by the learned Single Judge that no extra-financial burden is
going to be caused on BMHRC for engaging Ex-servicemen or Ex-
paramilitary personnel. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by
holding that the impugned policy decision of ICMR does not suffer from
any arbitrariness and it does not call for any indulgence.
6. Arguments heard for the purpose of final disposal of the present writ
appeal.
7. Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the appellants submits that ICMR had arbitrarily taken the decision to
classify the Institutes/Headquarters/Centres in two categories and issued
the order to engage 100% staff from Ex-servicemen or Ex-paramilitary
personnel for High Priority Security Cover Centres and 60% Ex-
servicemen or Ex-paramilitary persons in Moderate Security Cover
with 40% trained civilian security staff. Appellants have tried to point out
that BMHRC, Bhopal is having hospitals, hostels, ICCU Wards, Directors'
office, residential bungalow, campus, 8 health centres situated at different
locations except labs/bio labs and, therefore, even as per the rationale
given by the ICMR for engaging the 100% Ex-servicemen or Ex-
paramilitary personnel for High Priority Security Cover are not applicable
to BMHRC and the appellants are competent to provide the security to
BMHRC. Classification between High Priority Security Cover and
Moderate Security Cover is artificial and the appellants, those are
rendering their services since 2002, cannot be deprived from their bread
and butter by the colorable exercise of administrative powers. Learned
Senior Advocate further submits that so called security threats is only
figment of imagination and there is no such threat to the centres of
BMHRC, Bhopal. Due to the decision of ICMR, all the appellants have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30512
become ineligible to be engaged by BMHRC, therefore, the rationale for
taking such decision may be examined by this Court.
8. Learned Senior Advocate relied on a judgment rendered by the
Supreme Court in the matter of Rachna and others Vs. Union of India
and Another, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 638; wherein the Supreme Court
has held that policy decisions are open for judicial review for very limited
purpose and the Court can interfere into realm of public policy, so framed
if it is either absolutely capricious, totally arbitrary for not informed of
reasons. Appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by
learned Single Judge as well as quashment of the office order dated
22.02.2022 qua BMHRC, Bhopal.
9. Ms.Kanak Gaharwar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent no.4, submits that Ex-servicemen and Ex-paramilitary
personnel are well trained persons and are able to handle with any kind of
security threat. ICMR has issued the direction to replace the Security
Guards of BMHRC with Ex-Army Personnel for securing the premises and
sensitive sections of the department. The decision has not been taken only
in respect of BMHRC but as many as 14 institutes have been classified as
High Priority Security Cover and 14 as Moderate Security Cover. For
Moderate Security Cover, 60% Security Guards will be of Ex-servicemen
or Ex-paramilitary personnel and 40% of trained civilian staff will be
permissible. The decision has been taken considering the security threats to
the centres and the appellants cannot raise any objection to the policy
decision of ICMR. The allegation of violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India is baseless. The appellants were working on the basis
of contract and the period of contract has already been expired and since
2022 the appellants are working on the strength of interim order earlier
passed by the writ court and thereafter by this Court. The appellants cannot
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30512
claim any right from the BMHRC as they have been engaged by the
Contractors. There is no direct employee/employer relation between the
appellants and BMHRC. The decision taken by ICMR and consequent
order dated 20.02.2022 is of administrative nature, not involving any
change in the rules and, therefore, there is no scope for judicial review of
the said decision.
10. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court
delivered in the matter of Directorate of Film Festivals and others Vs.
Gaurav Ashwin Jain and others, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 737; wherein
the Supreme Court has held that the scope of judicial review of
Governmental policy is now well defined and Courts do not and cannot act
as Appellate Authority examining the correctness, suitability and
appropriateness of a policy, nor are Courts advisors to the executive on
matters of policy, which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope
of judicial review of government policy is very limited and while
scrutinizing a governmental policy in exercise of judicial review, what is
required to be checked, whether it is violative of fundamental rights of the
citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the constitution or oppose to any
statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. The Courts cannot interfere in
the policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a
better, fairer or viser alternative is available. Legality of the policy and not
the wisdom or soundness of policy may be subject to judicial review. On
these grounds, respondent prays for dismissal of the appeal.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre, Bhopal (BMHRC,
Bhopal) was constituted for the purpose of health care of the affected gas
victims under control of department of Health Research and Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Indian Council of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30512
Medical Research (ICMR) is the apex body. As most of ICMR
Institutes/Centres are dealing with biological agents and few have Bio
Safety Level (BSL) -3 and 4 labs and some of the Institutes/Centres are
also handling radioactive materials, risk to a Bio Lab that handles
infectious and unknown etiology agents radioactive material etc. is very
high and considering the same ICMR has classified its
Institutes/Headquarters/Centres in two categories; (i) High Priority
Security Cover (ii) Moderate Security Cover and issued a direction to
engage the security agencies for its centres. On 22.02.2022 ICMR issued
the impugned order, which reads as under :-
No. 19/20/2019 Admn.l
INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH
V. Ramalingaswami Bhawan
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi
Dated: 22.02.2022
OFFICE ORDER
It is observed that Security Personnel have been engaged in
ICMR Institutes/Hqrs. elther from DGR or other agencies, as per the
present guidelines, following GFR 2017 norms that are mandatory for
hiring of Security Services in ICMR.
2. Most of our ICMR Institutes/ Centres are dealing with blological
agents and few have Bio safety Level (BSL)-3 lab and one Institute has
BSL-4 High Containment Lab. Few more BSL-3 & 4 labs are being
constructed for ICMR. Some of the Institutes/Centres are also handling
radioactive materials. Risk to a Bio Lab that handles infectious and
unknown etiology agents, radioactive material etc, broadly includes:
Sabotage of chemicals, blological and radioactive or proprietary;
Disruption to critical or high-value equipment;
Threats from activist groups;
Deliberate exposure to hazardous materials;
Loss or release of sensitive information; and
Unauthorized laboratory experimentation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30512
Though hiring of Security Services from DGR is not a mandatory
requirement for ICMR, but keeping in view of the present security threats
and blo hazards, visit of foreign delegates and WIP, the ICMR
Hqrs/Institutes/Centres have been classified as under:
High Priority Security Cover Moderate Security Cover
1. ICMR-NIV, Pune 1. ICMR-NIE, Chennai
2. ICMR-NIRT, Chennai 2. ICMR-NIOP, New Delhi
3. ICMR-NJIL & OMD, Agra 3. ICMR-NIMR, New Delhi
4. ICMR-RMRC, Bhubneshwar 4. ICMR-NIN,
Hyderabad
5. ICMR-RMRC, Gorakhpur 5. ICMR-NICPR, Noida
6. ICMR-RMRC, Dibrugarh 6. ICMR-NIOH, Ahmedabad
7. ICMR-RMRC, Port Blair 7. ICMR-NITM,
Belagavi
8. ICMR-NICED, Kolkata 8. ICMR-NCDIR, Bengaluru
9. ICMR-RMRIMS, Patna 9. ICMR-NIREH,
Bhopal
10. ICMR-VCRC, Puduchery 10. ICMR-NARFBR,
Hyderabad
11. ICMR-NARI, Pune 11. ICMR-NIRTH,
Jabalpur
12. ICMR-BMHRC, Bhopal 12. ICMR-NIIRNCD,
Jodhpur
13. ICMR Headquarters 13. ICMR-NIRRH,
Mumbai
14. ICMR-NIMS, New Delhi 14. ICMR, NIIH, Mumbai
(i) For High Priority Security Cover To engage the security
agencies enlisted by the Directorate General of Resettlement (DGR),
through GeM portal, with 100% staff from Ex-service or Ex-paramilitary
persons.
(ii) For Moderate Security Cover To engage the security agencies,
through GeM portal, with 60% Ex-service or Ex-paramilitary persons
and 40% trained civilian security staff.
iii) Depending upon the local needs, lady security staff can also
be engaged, complying with the above criteria.
3. In case the DGR enlisted Security Services are not available
through GeM, selection has to be done following GeM enabled system,
as per norms.
This issue with the approval of DG, ICMR
L22102/2022 XOC 22/02/2022
Dr. R. Lakshminarayanan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30512
Deputy Director General (Admn.)
Distribution:
1. The Directors/Director-In-charge of Permanent
Institutes/Centres of ICMR
2. PS to DG/Addl. DG/Sr. DDG (A)/Sr. FA, ICMR
3. Heads of all Divisions/Sections
4. DDG (A)/ADG (A)/ADG (F)
5. All Sr. AO/Sr. ACO of ICMR hars
6. Admin II
7. Central Procurement Cell, ICMR Hars
8. Dr. L.K. Sharma. Scientist-E-for copy of the same has been
malled at your email ID (Sharma. [email protected]) for website upload.
9. Guard file
13. The first ground of attack to the aforesaid order is that the said order
is violative to the fundamental rights of the appellants as by the said order
ICMRS has issued directions to engage Ex-servicemen and Ex-
paramilitary persons as Security Guards. There is no substance in the
allegation of violation of fundamental rights as ICMR has classified the
Centres in two categories and for the category of Moderate Security Cover,
ICMR has permitted 40% trained civilian security staff and, therefore, this
argument is not acceptable. Secondly, ICMR has given valid rationale for
engaging Ex-servicemen or Ex-paramilitary persons for High Priority
Security Cover and, therefore, the order cannot be treated as arbitrary. The
appellants were engaged by the security agencies and they are working
under the security agencies and the contract period of these agencies have
already been expired, therefore, the appellants cannot claim any equity.
The order has not been issued in respect of BMHRC, Bhopal only rather it
has been issued in respect of all the ICMR Institutes. ICMR has assigned
the reasons for considering the BMHRC, Bhopal as High Priority Security
Cover, which appears to be plausible and appropriate. Even otherwise, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30512
the prerogative of an Institute to engage any class of security personnel to
ensure the security of the Institute.
14. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the scope of judicial
review of Governmental policy is very limited and the Courts cannot act as
appellate authority examining the correctness, suitability and
appropriateness of a policy. Now it is settled position of law that Court can
only examine the legality of the policy and not the wisdom and soundness
of the policy.
15. Considering the aforesaid, we are in full agreement with the view
taken by the learned Single Judge that BMHRC is competent to engage
security agencies as per the order issued by ICMR and the decision of
ICMR does not suffer from any arbitrariness and it does not call for any
indulgence. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are based
on due appreciation of material available on record and we are in full
agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge.
16. Consequently, the appeal sans merits and is hereby dismissed. No
order as to costs.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
TG /-
TRUPTI
MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
2.5.4.20=7241b918bdfce9b2dbeca2
d3f16d26a91268e38b6dfafe7b251a2
57054c9b591, postalCode=482001,
GUNJAL
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=385619F40A1E66FC7
075D710C4D3DE38A0B2FA30CD674
26836AAD7A6693E493C, cn=TRUPTI
GUNJAL
Date: 2025.07.24 11:41:36 +05'30'
