Jajugalla Mallaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 22 January, 2025

Telangana High Court

Jajugalla Mallaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 22 January, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

              WRIT PETITION No. 12389 OF 2024

O R D E R:

Petitioner seeks a writ of quo warranto against the

5th respondent, restraining him from holding / continuing as

the Commissioner, Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad (TVVP),

Hyderabad, pursuant to G.O.Rt.No. 202, dated 04.04.2022. He

also prays for directions to Respondents 1 and 3 to fill up the

post of Commissioner as per the recommendations of a duly-

constituted Select Committee or Departmental Promotion

Committee. Additionally, petitioner seeks action against the 5th

respondent for alleged violation of the Model Code of Conduct.

2. The case of petitioner is that the 5th respondent,

who was holding the substantive post of Hospital

Superintendent, was kept as on-charge Joint Commissioner of

TVVP, which does not qualify him for the post of Commissioner.

It is argued that the said post ceased to exist after its allocation

to the State of Andhra Pradesh through G.O.Ms.No. 103, dated

04.09.2019. It is stated that the 1st respondent, without

following the prescribed procedure or consulting the Select

Committee, appointed the 5th respondent, thereby depriving
2

eligible and senior officers of their rightful opportunity.

Allegations of favoritism and violation of the Model Code of

Conduct are raised as the 5th respondent issued deputation

orders favouring individuals based on recommendations made

by a Member of the Legislative Assembly during the period when

the Model Code of Conduct was in force for Lok Sabha General

Elections, 2024. Petitioner relies on earlier instances where the

government by G.O.Rt.No. 108, dated 25.01.2012, constituted a

Select Committee for appointment of Commissioner, TVVP and

argues that such a procedure was not followed in the present

case.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri P.V. Krishnaiah

relied on the following judgments, in support of his contention

that petitioner has locus to seek a writ of quo warranto. In Hari

Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto 1, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held as under:

” A writ of quo warranto lies only when appointment is
contrary to a statutory provision. In High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat
Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat [(2003) 4 SCC 712 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 565]

1
(2010) 9 SCC 655
3

(three-Judge Bench) Hon’ble S.B. Sinha, J. concurring with the majority
view held : (SCC pp. 730-31, paras 22-23)

22. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a
matter of this nature is required to determine at the outset as to
whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of certiorari or
a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ
of quo warranto is a limited one. While issuing such a writ, the Court
merely makes a public declaration but will not consider the respective
impact of the candidates or other factors which may be relevant for
issuance of a writ of certiorari. (See R.K. Jain v. Union of India [(1993) 4
SCC 119 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1128 : (1993) 25 ATC 464] , SCC para 74.)

23. A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment is
contrary to the statutory rules. (See Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society
Ltd. v. Govt. of Haryana [(2002) 6 SCC 269] .)”

In Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat 2,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:

” 17. In Armed Forces Medical Assn. v. Union of
India [Armed Forces Medical Assn. v. Union of India, (2006) 11 SCC 731
(1) : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 548 (1)] , it has been observed by this Court
that strict rules of locus standi are relaxed to some extent in a quo
warranto proceedings. It is further observed in the said decision that
broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial remedy by
which any person, who holds an independent substantive public office
or franchise or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the
said office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be duly
determined, and in case the finding is that the holder of the office has
no title, he would be ousted from that office by a judicial order. It is
further observed that in other words, the procedure of quo warranto
gives the judiciary a weapon to control the executive from making
appointments to public office against law and to protect citizens from

2
(2022) 5 SCC 179
4

being deprived of public office to which they have a right. These
proceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of public
office. It is further observed that it will, thus, be seen that 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, and that inevitably would lead to an
enquiry, as to, whether, the appointment of the alleged usurper has
been made in accordance with law or not”.

4. The 1st respondent justifies the appointment of the

5th respondent for administrative convenience, citing his SC

community background, administrative experience, and

reputation in medical profession. It is clarified that G.O.Ms.No.

92, dated 09.08.2024, sanctioned a regular post of

Commissioner, TVVP, thereby refuting petitioner’s claim of

post’s non-existence. It is further stated that deputations during

the Model Code of Conduct period were necessitated for patient

care and approved as per government guidelines.

5. The 2nd respondent argues that the post of

Commissioner, TVVP, is a nominated position under the A.P.

Vaidya Vidhana Parishad Act, 1986, and that there are no

specific service rules for its appointment. This respondent

asserts that petitioner’s contention regarding the Select

Committee’s involvement is misplaced as it applies only to

regular appointments, not to in-charge arrangements. It is
5

highlighted that seniority disputes among Civil Surgeons and

pending writ petitions in that regard (W.P. No. 24516 of 2019

and W.P. No. 21159 of 2023) have delayed resolution of

promotions and regular appointments and after finalization of

seniority issues, this respondent will place the proposals for

promotion to the post of DCHS/Programme Officer as well as

Joint Commissioner as per the existing service rules.

6. It is the case of the unofficial 5th respondent that

his appointment as Commissioner is valid, citing the absence of

regular Joint Commissioners in the TVVP. The respondent

denies allegations of favoritism explaining that all deputation

orders were issued in compliance with government directives

and in the interest of public service.

7. Heard learned Government Pleaders for Services-II

and Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Sri S. Vijay Prashanth,

learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, Sri Vijay B.

Paropakari, learned counsel for the 5th respondent.

8. This Court, in view of the judgments relied on by

the learned counsel for petitioner, supra, acknowledges

petitioner’s locus standi as a citizen and voter in Telangana to
6

file a writ of quo warranto. However, this Court notes that

appointment of the 5th respondent as Commissioner, TVVP, is

an administrative decision within the discretion of the

government, as permitted under Section 3.3(A) of the A.P.

Vaidya Vidhana Parishad Act, 1986. Further, the post of

Commissioner, TVVP was re-sanctioned through G.O.Ms.No. 92

dated 09.08.2024, thereby validating the 5th respondent’s

appointment.

9. As regards the deputation orders issued during the

Model Code of Conduct, as discussed above, they were in the

interest of public service and duly ratified by the government.

No substantive evidence was provided to establish favoritism or

mala fide intent on the part of the 5th respondent. Further, it is

to be noted that the involvement of Select Committee applies to

regular appointments but not to in-charge arrangements.

Therfore, petitioner’s reliance on G.O.Rt.No. 108 dated

25.01.2012 is deemed inapplicable in the present context.

Here, apt to recognize that it is the government’s prerogative to

make interim appointments for administrative convenience,

especially in the absence of regular Joint Commissioners. In
7

light of the above observations, the Writ Petition lacks merit and

the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No

costs.

11. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if

any shall stand closed.

——– —————————–

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

22nd January 2025

ksld