Dev Pal Singh Petitioner v. Union Of India And 5 Others S

1. A writ of quo warranto has been sought in a public interest litigation for challenging the appointment of the fourth respondent as Chairman and Managing Director of the Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India (ALIMCO), a Central Government undertaking.

2. The basis on which the appointment is challenged is that the advertisement which was issued for the purpose of making a selection to the post specifies, inter alia, as a condition of eligibility, the holding of the pay scale by a Central Public Sector Executive of Rs. 43,200-66,000 (IDA). According to the petitioner, while the fourth respondent was working with an earlier employer namely the National Seeds Corporation Limited (the sixth respondent), his pay scale was upgraded to E-7 which is the equivalent pay scale. It is alleged that this upgradation was improper. Hence, the submission is that the appointment of the fourth respondent as Chairman and Managing Director of ALIMCO stands vitiated.

3. In assessing this grievance, the Court must have due regard to the fact that while a public interest litigation is not maintainable in a service matter, an exception is carved out in a situation where a writ of quo warranto is sought for the purpose of establishing that the incumbent of a public office does not fulfil the conditions of eligibility laid down by the statute or the governing conditions of service. The general principle that a public interest litigation in a service matter would not be maintainable is thus subject to this exception.

4. In the present case, the line of argument in the writ petition is that the upgradation which the fourth respondent obtained to pay band E-7 during the course of his engagement with the sixth respondent was improper. Reliance is sought to be placed on a fact finding report dated 24 September 2014 (Annexure 3). The issue is as to whether this would be sufficient for the Court to entertain a writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto. In our view, the answer to the issue must be in the negative for the simple reason that unless the grant of the pay scale to the fourth respondent is held in competent proceedings of a disciplinary nature to be improper or invalid, there would be no basis in the submission which is now urged to the effect that the fourth respondent was not eligible to hold the post in ALIMCO. Whether or not the pay band was correctly granted to the fourth respondent as an employee of the sixth respondent, is a matter which has to be determined in the course of the relationship of employment between the fourth respondent and his employer. Hence, this is not one of those cases where a writ of quo warranto can be entertained independently without a basic adjudication of a dispute in regard to the conditions of service of the fourth respondent. In such matters, the Court would be circumspect about entertaining a petition since what is essentially a service dispute cannot be resolved in the garb of converting it into a prayer for a writ of quo warranto.

5. For these reasons, we decline to entertain the writ petition though with the clarification that the dismissal of this writ petition is only on the grounds which have been stated in this order and shall not come in the way of any appropriate proceedings that may be pending or may be initiated in future. We also clarify that we have not made any observation that would prejudice the rights of the fourth respondent to defend any proceedings that may be pending or which may be adopted.

6. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.