Jitendra Dwivedi vs State of M.P. and Others

In this petition filed pro bono a writ of Quo Warranto is sought against respondent No. 4 on the ground that he has illegally usurped the Office of the Registrar, Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Jabalpur.

It is the case of petitioner that the criterias necessary for being appointed as a Registrar of the University is laid down under Section 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Pashu Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwa Vidhyalaya Adhiniyam 2009 and the said rule reads as under:

(a) An academician in the field of Veterinary Science not lower in rank than that of University Associate Professor or an officer from the Veterinary Service, whose pay scale is equivalent to University Associate Professor or

(b) An officer of the government not lower in rank than that of Dy. Secretary of the Government.

According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 is an officer from the Veterinary Science Department and, therefore, he is only eligible to be appointed in accordance to second part of Rule 14(2)(a), namely an officer from the Veterinary Service whose pay is equivalent to University Associate Professor.

Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Government Advocate argued that respondent No. 4 is only a Civil Surgeon working as a Gazetted Officer and his pay is not equivalent to that of a University Associate Professor, therefore, he is not eligible.

However, it is further argued by Shri S.K. Agrawal, learned counsel that treating the petitioner to be an Officer of Government not lower in rank than that of Deputy Secretary of the Government, he has been appointed. It is stated that the provisions of rule 14(2)(b) cannot be applied in the case of petitioner, when he is an Officer of Veterinary Science Department and, therefore, by applying sub-rule (b) of Rule 14(2) in the case of respondent No. 4 it is stated that he has been illegally appointed. Accordingly, contending that the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post in question is illegal, this writ petition has been filed.

On notice being issued respondent have filed the reply and in the reply they point out that respondent No. 4 has been appointed in accordance to the requirement of Rule. They also raise a preliminary objection to say that in service matters the Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable.

It is pointed out by Shri Prashant Singh that the Registrar can be a person who fulfills either the criteria laid down in Rule 14(2)(a) or 14(2)(b). It is stated that respondent No. 4 was working as a Civil Surgeon in the Veterinary Department in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 + A.G.P. 7600/-, this is equivalent to the post of Deputy Secretary in the State Government, therefore, he is eligible for appointment under Rule 14(2)(b). It is stated that the respondent No. 4 is working in the corresponding pay scale equivalent to the Deputy Secretary and document Annexure R-1 is filed to indicate the same. It is further pointed out by the University that respondent No. 4 is qualified for appointment as Registrar of University as he has completed 30 years of service and had been granted seniority and promotion on the post of Deputy Director, Veterinary Services and the name of respondent No. 4 has been shown in the gradation list at Sr. No. 82 as per Annexure P-2.

We have considered the rival contention and we find that to be qualified for appointment as Registrar, a person has to be an academician in the field of Veterinary Science not lower in the rank of University Associate Professor or Officer from the Veterinary Service whose pay scale is equivalent to that of a University Associate Professor or under Sub-Rule (b) an Officer of the Government not lower in rank of Deputy Secretary of the Government. A plain reading of the aforesaid rule clearly indicate that to be eligible for appointment as a Registrar the following three criteria of persons are eligible; (i) an academician in the field of Veterinary Science not lower in the rank of University Associate Professor; (ii) an Officer from the Veterinary Service drawing pay equivalent to a University Associate Professor; or (iii) an Officer of the government not lower in rank that of a Deputy Secretary.

It is clear that a person who fulfills anyone of the aforesaid criteria is eligible for appointment. As far as respondent No. 4 is concerned, he is Civil Surgeon working in the Veterinary Department and he is also holding a post equivalent to that of a Deputy Secretary to the government as is evident from assertion made by the State Government in Para 5 and 6 of the reply alongwith documents Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2. A Civil Surgeon in Veterinary Department is an Officer of the Government and from the document Annexure R-1 and the pay scale of respondent No. 4 it is clear that he is holding the rank which is equivalent to that of Deputy Secretary of the Government. That being so, we are of the considered view that respondent No. 4 fulfills the criteria laid down under Rule 14(2)(b) and there is no illegality in the appointment. Merely because the respondent No. 4 is an Officer from the Veterinary Science Department it cannot be said that he cannot be appointed even if he fulfills the requirement under Sub-Clause 2(b). Contention of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 can be considered only under the second part of Rule 14(2)(a) and not under Rule 14(2)(b). This argument of petitioner cannot be accepted because the rule contemplates three alternate eligibility criteria, as indicated hereinabove, and if a person fulfills anyone of the three criteria, he is eligible for appointment. As respondent No. 4 fulfills one of these criteria, that is Rule 14(2)(b) there is no illegality or error warranting interference.

Accordingly, finding no merit in the case, the petition is dismissed.