Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2015
1 WP.No.4648/2014
Manish Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and others
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR.
***
DIVISION BENCH
HON.SHRI JUSTICE S.C. SHARMA
&
HON. SHRI JUSTICE D.K. PALIWAL
***
(Writ Petition No.3026/2014)
Abhishek Kamthan
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Shri D.P. Singh, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Arvind Dudawat, Additional Advocate General, for
the respondents No.1 to 2/State.
Shri R.D. Jain, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S.K.
Jain, counsel for respondent No.4.
______________________________________________________________
&
( Writ Petition No.4648/2014)
Manish Gupta
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Shri D.P. Singh, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Arvind Dudawat, Additional Advocate General, for
the respondents No.1 to 2/State.
Shri Sushil Chaturvedi, counsel for the respondent
No.3A.
Shri R.D. Jain, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S.K.
Jain, counsel for respondent No.4.
______________________________________________________________
2 WP.No.4648/2014
Manish Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and others
ORDER
(Passed on 16th November, 2015) Per S.C. Sharma, J. -
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the aforesaid two writ petitions, they were heard analogously together and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts of Writ Petition No.3026/2014 are narrated as under:-
2. The petitioner, before this Court, has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 11.02.2013 passed by the State of Madhya Pradesh giving contractual appointment/extension for a period of one year to respondent No.4 on the post of Engineer-in-Chief. The order was passed on 11.02.2013 and the same has come to an end by efflux of time. The petitioner who is the businessman is aggrieved by the extension given to respondent No.4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that the recruitment rules known as Madhya Pradesh Irrigation & Geological Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1968, do not provide for any contractual appointment/extension after retirement, therefore, the appointment of respondent No.4 is contrary to the recruitment rules and the appointment order deserves to be quashed. Second ground which has been raised before this Court is that the respondent No.4 is holding the post of Executive Engineer and therefore, he could not have given contractual appointment/extension on the post of Engineer-
in-Chief.
3 WP.No.4648/2014Manish Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and others
4. The third ground as raised is that respondent No.4 was facing a criminal case and therefore by no stretch of imagination, the contractual appointment/extension could not have been given to him. Placing reliance on the judgment dated 06.08.2015 rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Mansukh Lal Saraf Vs. Arun Kumar Tiwari & Others in Writ Petition No.198/1999 his contention is that keeping in view the aforesaid judgment this Court does have a right to entertain such a writ petition for quashing the appointment of respondent No.4, who has been appointed on contractual basis/extension.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has drawn attention of this Court towards the Executive Instructions dated 03.09.2011 and his contention is that a committee has been constituted to grant extension/contractual appointment to those persons who are having experience keeping in view that various factors as stated in the policy dated 03.09.2011. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the cabinet approval was also granted for appointment of respondent No.4 on contractual basis/extension and the petitioner has filed a frivolous petition which deserves dismissal.
6. This Court has carefully gone through the recruitment rules. It is true that there is no provision for granting contractual appointment/extension under the recruitment rules, however, at the same time, a policy/executive instructions have been issued by the State Government keeping in view the shortage of officers in various departments. Respondent No.4 has served as an Engineer-in- Chief and has attained superannuation while serving as 4 WP.No.4648/2014 Manish Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and others Engineer-in-Chief. Keeping in view his vast experience, a necessity was felt to grant him extension and the same has been done. The cabinet approval was also granted for his appointment and he was appointed on the post of Engineer- in-Chief for a period of one year and that too has come to an end. He was further given extension on 04.02.2014 and the same has also come to and end. There is no challenge to the Executive Instructions dated 03.09.2011 in the present writ petition and quashment of such instructions has not been sought. The State Government keeping in view the shortage of officers and the Executive Instructions framed, decided to grant appointment to respondent no.4 on contractual basis/extension on the post of Engineer-in-Chief. So far as petitioner's contention that the respondent No.4 is an Executive Engineer is not supported by any documentary evidence. The respondent No.4 has attained the age of superannuation from the post of Engineer-in-Chief. At the relevant point of time, he was serving as Engineer-in-Chief and though his seniority was revised by the State Government in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, however, the fact remains that there was no reversion order in respect of respondent No.4. He attained the age of superannuation from the post of Engineer-in-Chief, therefore, the argument as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.4 was an Executive Engineer is not supported by any documentary evidence. So far as the pendency of the Criminal Case against the respondent No.4 is concerned, it is true that it was pending against him but the fact remains that it was under investigation at the relevant point of time. In the considered opinion of this Court, the State Government is the best judge to grant extension for a period of one year keeping in view the policy 5 WP.No.4648/2014 Manish Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and others dated 03.09.2011 keeping in view the shortage of the officers in the department.
7. This Court has also carefully gone through the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the matter of Mansukh Lal Saraf (supra). It was the case of illegal appointment as has been held by the Division Bench. The present case is not a case of illegal appointment and it is a case of grant of extension to respondent No.4 after retirement for a period of one year. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for as Executive Instructions dated 03.09.2011 empower the State Government to grant such appointment.
8. Resultantly, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of extension granted in favour of respondent No.4. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed at admission stage itself.
9. In the light of the aforesaid, the another writ petition i.e. WP.No.4648/2014 also stands disposed of.
(S.C. Sharma) (D.K. Paliwal)
Judge Judge
pd