Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2006 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (8) TMI 653 - SC - Indian LawsWrit of quo warranto - Interpretation Of Statutes - Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1973 ("the Act") and the Rules - Power of the Government to make a contractual appointment u/s 4(2) - appointment for the Post of Managing Director - violation of law - HELD THAT:- At any event implicit in the finding of the Division Bench that the appointing authority has no right to appeal in quo warranto proceedings is that the Court cannot probe the mind of the appointing authority in a motion for quo warranto. The High Court erred in probing the mind of the government and acted contrary to its own finding on the role of appointing authority in quo warranto proceedings. The reasons felt out by the learned Judges of the Division Bench are not sustainable in law and the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with in these appeals. The learned Judges are not right in quashing the appointment of the appellant as Managing Director on the misconception that he has been re- appointed to the said office, whereas it was a fresh appointment under the provisions of the Act and in accordance with the prescribed qualification and eligibility under the Act. Further the appointee holds the office during the pleasure of the Government as provided under Section 6(1) of the Act. The learned Judges are not correct in holding that the Government is not affected by allowing the writ of quo warranto against the appointee and observed that the Government ought not have filed the appeal. It is unfortunate that the learned Judges have observed that the Government has filed the appeal at the instance of the appointee. The learned Judges, in our opinion, failed to appreciate that it is the duty of the Government to justify the appointment as such there is no wrong in filing the writ appeal. In the result, we hold: (a) that the appellant was not disqualified for appointment as Managing Director w.e.f. 1.2.2004. (b) There is no bar for appointment to the post in question on contract basis. The Government has absolute right to appoint persons on contract basis. (c) Writ of quo warranto does not lie if the alleged violation is not of a statutory provision. (d) There is no violation of Section 4(2) of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules because the appellant had experience in administration and capacity in commercial matters before he was appointed as Managing Director on contract basis by the Government. (e) The Government has no doubt power to make contractual appointment until further orders. The power included the power to make appointment on substantive basis temporary, officiating basis, ad hoc basis, daily wages or contractual basis. (f) Writ filed by respondents 1 & 2 is motivated. (g) The petitioners in the writ petition, respondent No. 1 herein which is an unregistered Association under the Trade Unions Act cannot maintain the writ petition. (h) The findings of legal mala fides is unsustainable and has no basis. The finding of legal mala fides suffers from other infirmities as far as placing reliance on the complaints against the appellant without adverting to the orders of the Lokyukta detail examination, the appellant is unequivocal terms in both the cases. Thus, the appeals are allowed and the order impugned in this appeal passed by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. The Division Bench of the High Court ordered cost in the writ appeal. There is no justification in ordering cost in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the appellant, State Government and respondent No. 4 are entitled to refund the cost, if it has already been paid. However, we are not ordering cost against respondent Nos. 1 & 2 taking into consideration of the financial constraint of the employees and by taking a lenient view of the matter. In view of this judgment, we allow the appeals filed by Mr. B. Srinivasa Reddy and by the State of Karnataka. As noted herein earlier, the appellant has already been released and in his place a person has already been appointed as a Managing Director of the Board on contract basis. Keeping this admitted fact in mind, we, therefore, keep it on record that the Government or the Board would be at liberty to consider and appoint a candidate, if occasion arises, on contract basis. If such a situation does arise in that case it would be open to the State or the Board to consider the candidature of the appellant (B. Srinivasa Reddy) with others.
|