In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Sachin Yadav, challenging the appointment and subsequent promotions of Arvind Kumar Rai to various posts in the Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayat Monitoring Cell. The court found no merit in the allegations that the appointments were made illegally and tailored to benefit a specific individual.
Background of the Case:
The PIL (Case No. 756 of 2024) was filed by Sachin Yadav, a member of the Zila Panchayat, Etawah, who contended that the appointments of Arvind Kumar Rai, the fifth respondent, to the positions of Deputy Director, Superintending Engineer, and Chief Engineer in the Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayat Monitoring Cell, were void ab initio. The petitioner argued that the selection criteria were manipulated to confer undue benefits upon Mr. Rai.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Rakesh Pandey and Advocate Umesh Vats, while the state respondents were represented by Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal and other counsels, including A.K. Goyal, Shashi Prakash Rai, and Shobhit Mohan Shukla.
Key Legal Issues Involved:
1. Legality of Appointments and Promotions:
The petitioner challenged the legality of Mr. Rai’s appointment on an ad hoc basis to the post of Engineer in 1992 and his subsequent regularization in 2000. The primary contention was that his appointment did not comply with the statutory requirements laid out in the “Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayat Monitoring Cell Gazetted Officers Service Rules, 2004” (hereinafter “Rules, 2004”).
2. Alleged Favouritism and Rule Manipulation:
The petitioner alleged that rules were amended in 2023 to create avenues for Mr. Rai’s promotions, arguing that these changes were made to favor him specifically, thereby constituting an act of favouritism.
3. Maintainability of the Quo Warranto Petition:
The respondents argued that the writ of quo warranto, challenging Mr. Rai’s right to hold public office, was not maintainable because the office he held did not qualify as a “public office” in the context required for such a writ. They also contended that the petition was driven by personal vendetta rather than public interest.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Justice Vikas Budhwar, writing for the bench, observed that the government’s decision to regularize Mr. Rai’s appointment was within its administrative competence, particularly since his regularization took place before the enforcement of the “Rules, 2004.” The court held that the rules do not apply retroactively to invalidate the regularization that occurred in 2000.
Quoting the court, Justice Budhwar remarked:
“The law does not contemplate vacuum; in the absence of statutory rules, government orders will govern the condition of services.”
The court further stated that the restructuring of the cadre and the subsequent promotions were within the legal ambit and administrative exigencies, permissible under Rule 4 of the “Rules, 2004.” Thus, the restructuring and promotions were deemed valid and not a case of undue favoritism.
On the issue of the maintainability of the writ, the court referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court’s judgment in Renu and Others vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (2020), and concluded that the petition failed to establish that Mr. Rai’s office was a public office in the context necessary for a writ of quo warranto.
Important Observations of the Court:
The court noted,
“Before a person can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to satisfy the court that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority.”
The court further added:
“The petitioner has failed to show any illegality committed by the respondents, and the writ petition is devoid of merits.”
Final Judgment:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that it lacked merit and that the promotions and appointments of Mr. Rai were consistent with the statutory rules and government orders. The court observed that the petitioner did not provide sufficient grounds to establish that Mr. Rai’s appointment was contrary to law or that he lacked the qualifications required for his promotions.
Case Information:
– Case Title: Sachin Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Others
– Case Number: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 756 of 2024
– Bench: Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar
– Counsel for Petitioner: Rakesh Pandey, Sr. Advocate, Umesh Vats
– Counsel for Respondents: Manish Goyal (AAG), A.K. Goyal, Shashi Prakash Rai, Shobhit Mohan Shukla
