Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr. Pc Jain S/O Shri Kc Jain vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 July, 2019
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11879/2019
Dr. Pc Jain S/o Shri Kc Jain, Aged About 79 Years, R/o S-3, Jyoti
Nagar Extn. Amrudon Ka Bagh, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Building, Jaipur.
2. Addl. Chief Secretary-Cum- Secretary To The Department
Of Personnel, State Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Building,
Jaipur.
3. Addl. Chief Secretary-Cum Secretary (Home), State Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat Building, Jaipur.
4. Shri Bhupendra Yadav, Director General Of Police, Police
Hqrs. Lal Kothi, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. P.C. Jain, petitioner is present in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Order 15/07/2019 This petition has been filed with all encompassing prayers as under:
"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that in the facts and circumstances stated above, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the relevant record from the department, examine the same and quash and set aside Annexure-2 thereby directing the State Government to appoint the DGP in consonance with the provisions of law, mandate of the law, provisions of the directions of Hon'ble the (D.B. SAW/1131/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 11:09:13 PM) (2 of 8) [CW-11879/2019] Supreme Court of India and also pass such other orders / directions in the nature of quo warranto, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ in its nature thereby directing and declaring the appointment of the present DGP respondent Shri Bhupendra Yadav to be null and void.
The proper directions be also issued to the State Government to act according to law and also pass such other orders which are found in the interest of justice and in consonance with law."
The formulation and language of the prayer is that of the petitioner himself.
Stating himself to be a very conscientious and law abiding citizen, the petitioner submits that he is concerned with the mode of appointment and minimum tenure of the Director General of Police (hereafter 'the DGP') in the State of Rajasthan which he asserts was / is not in consonance with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. {IA No. 24616 of 2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310 of 1996}. It has been submitted that the guidelines of the Apex Court with regard to the procedure for appointment and minimum tenure of the DGPs have not been followed in appointing respondent no.4 as the DGP. It has been submitted that under (D.B. SAW/1131/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 11:09:13 PM) (3 of 8) [CW-11879/2019] Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 (hereafter 'the Act of 2007'), Director General of Police appointed shall have a minimum tenure of two years, albeit subject to the Rules made under All India Services Act, 1951. In the circumstances, it has been prayed that a writ including quo-warranto amongst others be issued against the respondent no.4 and he be removed from the office of the DGP, Rajasthan with the State Government simultaneously being directed to make a fresh appointment of DGP, Rajasthan in accordance law.
Dr. PC Jain petitioner appearing in person has reiterated the averments in the petition.
Heard. Perused the petition. Considered.
This petition is completely misdirected and without force.
The Apex Court in the case of B. Srinivas Reddy Versus Karnataka Urban Water Supply Drainage Board Employees' Association and others reported in (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 731 (II) has held that when the Court is seized of a writ of (D.B. SAW/1131/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 11:09:13 PM) (4 of 8) [CW-11879/2019] quo warranto, it is for it to first determine as to whether a case has been made out for issue of such a writ. In the case of The University of Mysore & Anr. Versus C.D. Govinda Rao and another reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of quo-warranto entails a judicial scrutiny to ascertain as to whether the holder of the office has a valid right to so do, the intent being to protect the public from usurpers of public office. It is well settled that a writ of quo-warranto can lie only when appointment to a public office is made contrary to the statutory rules and is therefore invalid. However, in the instant case, the respondent no.4 vide order dated 30.6.2019 Annexure-1 to the petition when holding the post of D.G. Anti Terrorist Squad and D.G. Special Operation Group was transferred / posted effective 1.7.2019 as DGP in the State of Rajasthan being the senior most IPS officer in the State of Rajasthan. Annexure-2 to the petition indicates that a proposal was sent by the State Government to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for convening the meeting of the requisite Committee to prepare a (D.B. SAW/1131/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 11:09:13 PM) (5 of 8) [CW-11879/2019] panel from amongst 11 (eleven) senior most eligible Director General and Addl. Director General of Police, Rajasthan for appointment as Director General of Police. The respondent no.4 was amongst the eleven eligible and his consent for appointment as DGP also sought. The eligibility of respondent no.4 to be promoted as Director General has not been put to question. Dr. PC Jain has not brought to the notice of this Court any statutory eligibility which the respondent no.4 lacks which vitiates his appointment / posting as DGP of the State of Rajasthan. Even otherwise in view of the fact that the respondent no.4 is a long standing member of the Indian Police Service and in the cadre of Director General with the Rajasthan Police, the question of his eligibility for being appointed as DGP of the State of Rajasthan cannot be doubted. It is evident from Annexure-2 to the petition that due process for the appointment / posting of the respondent no.4 as DGP was followed.
The issue of two years minimum tenure of the DGP and its binding legal force is not relevant to the writ of quo-warranto (D.B. SAW/1131/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 11:09:13 PM) (6 of 8) [CW-11879/2019] sought against the respondent no.4 Shri Bhupendra Yadav as quite clearly it has no relevance to the question of his eligibility. The petitioner aggrieved of the appointment / posting of respondent no.4 as the DPG Rajasthan cannot seek to argue that he should have been appointed for a minimum period of two years. Besides, a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in IA No.24616 of 2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310 of 1996 - Prakash Singh & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. decided on 13.3.2019 has clarified that its order earlier passed on 3rd July, 2018 in IA No. 144172 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310/1996 was to the effect that recommendation for appointment to the post of Director General by the UPSC and preparation of panel for the purpose should be purely on the basis of merit of the officers who have a minimum residual tenure of 6 months i.e. officers who have at least six months of service prior to the retirement. That the respondent no.4 has a six month tenure is not in question nor is it even remotely suggested that he was not in the panel sent by State to (D.B. SAW/1131/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 11:09:13 PM) (7 of 8) [CW-11879/2019] UPSC or that the UPSC did not include his name amongst those who could be appointed as DGP.
A writ of quo warranto may escape scrutiny on the issue of locus standi. But it is absolutely relevant in respect of a writ of mandamus or of prohibition also sought in the petition.
Nothing in the petition nor in the arguments advanced by Dr. PC Jain even remotely confers an iota of locus standi on him to challenge the respondent no.4's appointment as DGP Rajasthan or seek a writ of mandamus in regard thereto. None of Dr. PC Jain's legal or fundamental rights by the said appointment have been contravened. His purported public spiritedness and perception of law without more is not at all relevant for seeking a writ of mandamus and in any event no one so can without a preceding demand for justice - which is absent in the instant case. The writ for mandamus as prayed for is thus liable to be dismissed on these short grounds. Ditto for the writ of prohibition sought, if such a writ can at all could be filed in respect of an appointment / posting. It appears that the writ of quo warranto has been sought (D.B. SAW/1131/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 11:09:13 PM) (8 of 8) [CW-11879/2019] in this petition without seriously questioning the eligibility of respondent no. 4 to hold the post of DGP Rajasthan only to cloud the otherwise obvious lack of locus standi of the petitioner, an advocate, to challenge the appointment / posting of respondent no.4 as DGP, Rajasthan.
The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the petition deserves dismissal in limine.
It is so dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA),J DK/ (D.B. SAW/1131/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 11:09:13 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)