Anjani Kumar Mishra vs State of M.P. and Others

R.S. Jha, Judge

Heard Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 2.5.1998 by which the respondent No. 3 has been made Director of Swaraj Sansthan Sanchanalaya under the Ministry of Culture, Bhopal.

The petitioner, who professes to be an art lover and public spirited individual states that he has deep interest in the welfare of the respondent organization being an admirer of literature and prays for a writ of co-warranto for removing the respondent No. 3 from the post held by him.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 alongwith several other persons were initially the employees of the M.P. Kala Parishad which was subsequently closed down and the respondent No. 3 was sent on deputation to the M.P. Film Development Corporation wherein he has been absorbed as a Dy. Manager and was subsequently promoted to the post of Manager (Development). It is stated that the M.P. Film Development Corporation was closed down by order dated 15.12.1994 and it was decided to absorb the employees of the Corporation in the Cultural Department. It is stated that the Swaraj Bhawan was established in 1998 under the Ministry of Culture and consequently the respondent No. 3 was posted as its Director by order dated 2.5.1998 and his scale was also upgraded to Rs. 3,700-5,000/-. It is submitted that subsequently in the year 1999 the State Government has notified the Madhya Pradesh Sanskriti Vibhag (Rajbhasha Evam Sanskriti Sanchaalnalay) Rajpatrit Seva Bharti Niyam, 1998, which provides for filling up post of Director 100% by way of promotion and a person can be appointed as Director on deputation only in case of non-availability of a person for promotion in the department itself. It is stated that in the circumstances the appointment of the respondent No. 3 as Director by the impugned order dated 2.5.1998 deserves to be quashed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. From a perusal of the petition it is apparent that there is nothing on record to establish that the respondent No. 3 is not qualified to hold the post of Director at Swaraj Sansthan Sanchanalaya. Quite apart from the above, it is also clear that the respondent No. 3 was a member of the Cultural Department of the State of M.P. under which Swaraj Sansthan Sanchanalaya has been established and that he was an employee of the said department prior to his posting as Director.

In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ of co-warranto to remove the respondent No. 3 from his post. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court reported in the case of P.L. Lakhanpal Vs. A.N. Ray and Others, ) is also misconceived in view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to point out any lack of qualification or violation of the procedure prescribed by law at the time of appointment of respondent No. 3. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed.