[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Raj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1605 of 2025
VIJAY RAJ & ANR.
Vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2022 of 2025
DR. ANUJ SHARMA
Vs.
DR. MRS. ANURADHA GUPTA & ORS.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1601 of 2025
KULDEEP PARASHAR & ORS.
Vs.
DR. (MRS.) ANURADHA GUPTA & ORS.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1604 of 2025
SMT. RAJNI SHUKLA
Vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1613 of 2025
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GWALIOR
Vs.
DR. (MRS.) ANURADHA GUPTA & ORS.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1615 of 2025
2
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Vs.
DR. (MRS.) ANURADHA GUPTA & ORS.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1616 of 2025
TANUJA VERMA
Vs.
DR. ANURADHA GUPTA & ORS.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1617 of 2025
SAPNA CHAUHAN
Vs.
DR. ANURADHA GUPTA & ORS.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1618 of 2025
SMT. GREESHMA ARYA
Vs.
DR. ANURADHA GUPTA & ORS.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1619 of 2025
SMT. SURUCHI BANSAL
Vs.
DR. ANURADHA GUPTA & ORS.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1631 of 2025
DR. DINESH DIXIT
Vs.
DR. (MRS.) ANURADHA GUPTA & ORS.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1641 of 2025
ANIL KUMAR DUBEY
Vs.
DR. (MRS.) ANURADHA GUPTA & ORS.
3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Shri Harish Dixit - Senior Advocate with Shri Parth Dixit and
Ms. Ritika Chaubey - Advocates for the appellants.
Shri MPS Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri D.S.
Raghuvanshi - Advocate for appellants (Kuldeep Parashar & Ors.).
Shri Dharmendra Dwivedi - Advocate for appellant (Dr. Anuj
Sharma).
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for appellants (Ms. Tanuja
Verma, Smt. Greeshma Arya, Smt. Sapna Chauhan and Smt. Suruchi
Bansal).
Shri Yash Sharma - Advocate for the appellant (Dr. Dinesh Dixit).
Shri Vivek Khedkar - Additional Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
Shri D.P. Singh -Advocate for the petitioner {Dr. (Mrs.) Anuradha
Gupta}.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{Delivered on 8th the Day of January, 2026}
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. Regard being had to similitude of the dispute, all connected writ
appeals are being heard analogously and decided by this common
judgment. For factual clarity, facts of Writ Appeal No.1605/2025 are
taken into consideration.
2. The present appeal (Writ Appeal No.1605/2025) under Section 2(1)
of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko
Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellants being
crestfallen by the order dated 20-05-2025 passed by learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No.9096/2024 whereby the petition preferred
by respondent No.6 (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") has
been allowed, quashing the deputation of 61 officers of Municipal
Corporation, Gwalior.
3. This is a case in which appellants impleaded their employer - State of
Madhya Pradesh and Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. All are
aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20-05-2025 passed in writ
petition No.9096/2024.
4. Dr.(Mrs.) Anuradha Gupta/petitioner (respondent No.6 herein) filed
one writ petition No.9096/2024 in the nature of quo-warranto
against Dr. Anuj Sharma, stating inter alia that Dr. Anuj Sharma is a
Veterinary Medical Assistant Surgeon and accordingly he cannot
be posted as Health Officer on deputation. On 16-04-2025, learned
Writ Court issued notices to the respondents/persons who are
posted on deputation in Municipal Corporation, Gwalior.
5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16-04-2025, State of Madhya
Pradesh preferred writ appeal No.1324/2025 and Municipal
Corporation, Gwalior also preferred writ appeal No.1329/2025 but
both the writ appeals were dismissed by this Court with an
observation that parties may complete the pleadings and then writ
petition may be heard and decided on its own merits.
6. Thereafter, writ petitioner amended the writ petition and impleaded
61 persons as party respondents, who were admittedly working on
transfer/deputation in Municipal Corporation, Gwalior on different
posts. Since Dr. Dinesh Dixit was repatriated to his original
department, therefore, he was not impleaded as party respondent in
the writ petition. The corresponding pleadings in respect of
subsequently 61 respondents were not amended in the writ petition.
7. After receiving notices, appellants filed their short reply before
learned Writ Court however, there was no pleading in the writ
petition against them, therefore, only legal grounds and factual
background were pleaded in reply to the writ petition.
8. It is worth mentioning the fact that appellants and other employees
who were impleaded later on filed reply on limited grounds because
initially pleadings were only against Dr. Anuj Sharma and not against
present appellants. Therefore, legal grounds were tried to be
answered by the present appellants.
9. After considering the rival submissions and pleadings of the
parties, learned Writ Court passed impugned order dated 20-05-
2025 in writ petition whereby deputation of all employees stood
cancelled, therefore, appellants are before this Court.
10. It is the submission by counsel for the appellants (who were
impleaded later on as respondents in writ petition) that not only
present appellants as employee of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior
are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20-05-2025 but Municipal
Corporation, Gwalior has also filed an appeal vide Writ Appeal
No.1613/2025 and State Government have also filed writ appeal
No.1615/2025. Therefore, all the parties are aggrieved by the
impugned order.
11. It is further submitted that writ petition was filed in the nature of quo-
warranto against Dr. Anuj Sharma who is Veterinary Surgeon and
appointed as Health Officer in Municipal Corporation, Gwalior.
However, writ of quo-warranto served the purpose once Dr. Anuj
Sharma who was posted on deputation, got repatriated. However,
learned Writ Court proceeded and gave finding over suitability of the
candidates which is not permissible. In a writ of quo-warranto,
eligibility can be seen, but not suitability.
12. It is further submitted that the prescribed number of sanctioned
posts are approved by State Government in set-up. Rules do not
provide any number of posts. Set-up does not have force of law and
is not backed by statutory provision because set-up is
administrative order, not statutory provision, violation of which
invoke, writ of quo-warranto. Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh
Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Service Conditions of
Officers and Servants) Rules 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Rules of 2000") provides for Municipal Corporation to decide
number of posts. As submitted, no material of any
approval/adoption of set-up by Municipal Corporation was
provided, only some circular of 2014 is referred. Since set-up is
based on 2011 census, therefore, requirement is increased due to
increase in population and because various government projects are
executed by the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior.
13. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel that Section 58(3) of
the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act of 1956") is regarding deputation of officers of State to a
Municipal Corporation. This is an enabling provision. Powers are
restricted so far as, it stated that "depute to any post and "as it may
consider necessary".
14. It is further submitted that in absence of reply/record filed of
Finance Department, writ was issued and appointments were found
against the public interest. Deputation was quashed on the ground
of colourable exercise of power in which no reply was sought by
the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and no reply was filed by the
State. State Government sent the appellants on deputation to
Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, therefore, there is no presumption
of good faith regarding action taken by the Government. In
exceptional circumstances employee can be sent on deputation.
15. Another senior counsel Shri Raghuvanshi appearing on behalf of
some of the employees of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior
vehemently challenged the findings of learned Writ Court.
According to him, employees/appellants are posted in Municipal
Corporation, Gwalior after transfer on deputation. It is not a case of
any body that those employees do not hold requisite qualification.
No pleadings were made by the petitioner of writ petition (Dr.
Anuradha Gupta) regarding deputation or order of appointment of
present appellants. Therefore, no writ of quo-warranto could be
issued in absence of any pleadings as such. He relied upon the
decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Bansh Lal
Vs. Sahodar Prasad Maht and others, (2010) 9 SCC 655 and
R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 119.
16. Learned senior counsel further submits that source of power is
traceable under Section 58(3) and 58(5) of the Act of 1956. State
Government can transfer a person on deputation on any post.
Therefore, finding recorded by learned Single Judge that despite of
no post available, the order is passed, goes contrary to the
provisions of Section 58(3) and 58(5) of the Act of 1956.
According to him, in writ of quo-warranto, suitability cannot be
tested but eligibility can always be put to test.
17. It is further submitted by senior counsel for the appellants that writ
petitioner cannot be set to be have locus to challenge the order of
deputation and transfer of appellants because in absence of any
pleadings and findings recorded by learned Writ Court in respect to
qualification held by the present appellants, at the most writ of
mandamus could have been exercised and not writ of quo-
warranto. In absence of any finding with respect to eligibility and
qualification to hold the post of present appellants, writ of quo-
warranto at all was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the
appellants also prays for erasing of observation made against Anil
Kumar Dubey (Writ Appeal No.1641/2025) who was holding the
post of Additional Commissioner in Municipal Corporation,
Gwalior.
18. Shri Khedkar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the State has also taken exception to the impugned order and
submits that the State Government has authority to post a person
on deputation and even can transfer on deputation. It is further
submitted that despite the writ petition being rendered infructuous,
deputation orders of 61 persons posted in Municipal Corporation,
Gwalior were quashed going beyond the scope of writ of quo-
warranto.
19. Shri Gaurav Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal
Corporation, Gwalior also opposed the prayer and submits that
learned Writ Court traversed far beyond the scope of original relief
sought by the petitioner which was confined to writ of quo-
warranto against respondent No.6 namely Dr. Anuj Sharma.
According to him, learned Writ Court failed to appreciate Section
58, specifically Section 58(3) and 58(5) of the Act of 1956 which
expressly authorizes State Government to depute its officers to any
post in a Municipal Corporation including technical posts,
independent to the recruitment process under Section 58(1) of the
Act of 1956. He relied upon Section 58(5) of the Act of 1956 and
submits that State Government is empowered to transfer on
deputation any officer/staff of a Municipal Corporation to another
Municipal Corporation and non obstante clause therein overrides
contrary provisions under rules and bye-laws.
20. According to him, finding that multiple deputations were a
colourable exercise of power is illegal and factually untenable
finding. The mere fact that deputation order may have been issued
on ministerial recommendations but it does not itself render the
action illegal. It is part of executive functioning in a parliamentary
democracy. Learned counsel also raised the question of
suitability/eligibility and functional necessity of deputations.
21. Respondent - Dr. Anuradha Gupta also opposed the prayer. Her
counsel Shri D.P. Singh narrated the factual details. According to
him, once Dr. Anuj Sharma was removed from the Municipal
Corporation, Gwalior, therefore, purpose of filing petition was over
but learned Additional Advocate General for the State while
advancing arguments in Writ Appeal No.1324/2025, raised the
question regarding bona fides of the petitioner, therefore, petition
was not withdrawn by the petitioner later on. Petitioner wanted to
show her bona fides. According to him, prior to issuance of orders
of deputation, department of Urban Administration and
Development failed to adopt any procedure to fill the posts on
deputation by inviting applications or following the provisions as
contemplated under rule 110 of the Fundamental Rules as well as
without following Section 58 of the Act of 1956. Thus, State
Government caused illegality.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioner also made a submission that
scope of writ of quo-warranto by issuing notices to all the
employees posted on deputation, was enlarged may be without any
legal basis but the employees posted on deputations are in gross
contravention to Sections 54 and 58 of the Act of 1956. He relied
upon Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore
Nagar Nigam Karamchari Congress and another Vs. State of
M.P. and another, 1998(1) MPLJ 449 in which Full Bench of
this Court while upholding the authority of Section 58(1), (5) and
(6) of the Act of 1956 held that such power should be exercised
with caution and sparingly for valid reasons as well as the tenure
and the period of lien should be specifically mentioned and it
should not be for all times to come. Therefore, according to him,
such large number of posting of officers/employees on deputation
raises question presumably that persuaded learned Writ Court to
pass the order impugned.
23. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
documents appended thereto.
24. This is a case where scope and implementation of Sections 54 and 58
of the Act of 1956 and different provisions of Rules of 2000 are in
question. Service tenure of 61 employees posted on deputation in
Municipal Corporation, Gwalior are at stake.
25. So far as the provisions as contained in Section 58(6) of the Act of
1956 is concerned, Full Bench of this Court in case of Indore Nagar
Nigam Karamchari Congress and another (supra) already held
that such power should be exercised with caution and sparingly
for valid reasons as well as the tenure and the period of lien should
be specifically mentioned and it should not be for all times to
come. There is no doubt about such proposition. It is to be
followed necessarily by respondents. It is an ideal position which is
like a Polar Star and is to be followed, however the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties raise certain questions.
Some of them are based upon Section 58(5) and 58(6) of the Act of
1956 and can be reconciled with administrative efficiency,
administrative convenience of Municipal Corporation and financial
implications involved into it because the said provisions give
unfettered power to the State Government to transfer on deputation
even without consultation to the Corporation of officers or servants
concerned. Therefore, those powers must be exercised with caution
and not in routine manner. Here, it appears that State Government
used its power in routine manner to accommodate its favourite
officers. This compromised the efficiency and quality of work of
Municipal Corporation Gwalior. Nevertheless, some of the
questions are still to be answered. Some are:
(i) Is there any limit prescribed which may fix the number of
employees to be sent on deputation in a Corporation. In other
words, whether at the recommendation of Minister and desire
of the State Government, any number of employees as
considered fit by the State can be sent on deputation to a
Municipal Corporation or it should commensurate
administrative necessity, financial implications and other
related facts.
(ii) What is the statutory scheme as per the Act of 1956 and Rules
of 2000 and schedule appended thereto.
(iii) Whether deputation can be carried out in excess to the
sanctioned posts and eligibility/qualification of the officers to
hold the post.
(iv) It also raises the question that whether such large scale
deputations can be quashed on the ground of colourable
exercise of power.
(v) Although Rules do not provide any number of post, however
some set up is necessary to maintain system to address the
issue of salary, office space, work distribution/over lapping of
work, facility like vehicle/staff etc. All these aspects deserves
consideration and in absence of any set up, it would create an
anomalous and anarchic situation.
26. From the record it appears that respondents neither addressed this
issue by submitting record nor any set up to address the questions
posed. Learned Writ Court was compelled to give finding that
"Record" in this regard was not produced and State counsel submits
that files of only 35 persons pertaining to their deputation or transfer
on deputation have been received and files of the other persons have
not been sent.
27. All these eventualities persuades this Court to remand the matter back
to learned Writ Court so that petitioner may be given opportunity to
incorporate the additional pleadings in addition to the pleadings
regarding writ of quo-warranto and respondents/State and Municipal
Corporation, Gwalior are directed to submit complete record which
was not produced in earlier round of litigation, compelling learned
Writ Court to observe such default.
28. After completion of pleadings and documentation, learned Writ Court
shall consider all the questions involved in the issue including the
questions referred above and thereafter will pass an order preferably
taking into care the case of every individual and fact situation
involved into it. Learned Writ Court may raise and consider
additional issues also, if deem fit.
29. Possibility cannot be ruled out that some officers some how managed
deputation in Municipal Corporation for indefinite period, even some
officers may have got extension from time to time. Even after
retirement. All these aspects deserves consideration and correction.
However, it is made clear that petitioner shall not be permitted to
withdraw the petition looking to the issues involved. Petitioner shall
have to submit additional pleadings in respect of all those employees
involved. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and State of Madhya
Pradesh shall provide all documents about suitability of each
candidate and reason for posting him on deputation at Municipal
Corporation, Gwalior. State and Municipal Corporation, Gwalior
cannot escape from their responsibility.
30. Resultantly, writ appeal preferred by the appellants is allowed to a
limited extent and impugned order is set aside. Matter is remanded
back to learned Writ Court for a fresh consideration after completion
of pleadings and production of record by the State Government and
Municipal Corporation, Gwalior.
31. Accordingly, in view of this judgment, all connected writ appeals are
disposed of and copy of this judgment be kept in all connected Writ
Appeals. Writ Petition No.9096/2024 is restored to its original file
and matter be placed before learned Writ Court in week commencing
27th January, 2026.
32. Disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
Anil* JUDGE JUDGE
ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
2026.01.08 17:55:23
+05'30'
