Jaiuoalla Mallaiah v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of quo-warranto under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia against the SthRespondenthereinrequiringhimtoshowunderwhatauthority,heisholding andcontinuinginthepostofCommissioner,TelanganaVaidyaVidhanaParishad Telangana Vaidya Vidhana

04.04.2022, issued by the Respondents '1 and 3 herein and issue consequentiar directions restraining the Sth Respondent from hording/ continuing as commissioner, Terangana vaidya vidhana parishad in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.2oit, Heatth, Medical and Family Welfare Department, dated 'l "t Respondent herein and further direct the to forthwith fill up the post of Commissioner of Parishad as per the procedure prescribed in pursuance of the recornmendations made by serect committee/ Departmental Promotion committee by constituting such committee for the purpose of firing up the post of commissioner of rerangana Vaidya Vidhana and further direct the Respondents 1, 3 ,and 4 herein to forthwith take appropriate action against the Sth Respondent herein for violating the Model Code of Conduct. IANO:1OF2 o24 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased be to suspend the operation of G.o.Ms.No.2o2, Heallh, Medical and Famity wetfare Department, dated 04.04.2022, issued by the 1st Respondent herein, pending disposal of the Writ Petition_ lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 1 and 3 to fo(hwith fi, up the post of commissioner of Telangana Vaidya Vidhana parishad by foilowing the procedure prescribed to firl up the post of commissioner, Terangana Vaidya Vidhana parishad by constituting the serect committee / Departmentar promotion committee and in pursuance of the recommendations made by such committee, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the. affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to restrain the 5th Respondent from holding the post of commissioner of relangana vaidya vidhana parishad in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.202, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, dated

04.04.2022, issued by the 1st Respondent herein, pending disposal of the writ Petition. lA NO:4 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 1, 3 & 4 herein to take appropriate action against the sth Respondent herein for violating the Model code of conduct, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI p.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.1, 3 & 4: Gp FOR SERVTCES-II Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRt S.VtJAy PRASHANTH, S.C. FOR TGWP Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRt VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI The Gourt made the following: ORDER , .I -,\) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 12389 OF 2o24 ORDER: Petitioner seeks a writ of quo u.)at-ranto agai[st the 5th responde nt, restraining him from holding / continr: ing as the Commissioner, Telangana Vaidya Vidhana pa.rishad (TWp), Hyderabad, pursuant to G.O.Rt.No. 2O2, dated Ct4.O4.2022. He also prays for directions to Respondents l and {} to htt up the post ol Comrnissioner as per the recommendations of a duly constituted Select Committee or Departmenl,al prolnotion Committee. Additionally, petitioner seeks action itgainst Lhe Srh respondent lor alleged violation of the Model Code of Conduct.

2. The case of petitioner is that the Srh respondent, who \r'as holding the substantive post of Hospital S uperintencleut, was kept as on-charge Joint Commissioner of TVVP, which rloes not qualify him for the post of Commissioner. lt is argued that the said post ceased to exist after its allo,:ation lo the State of Andhra Pradesh through G.O.Ms.lrlo. 103, dated 04.O9.2079. It is stated that the 1"r responrlent, rvrthour follorving thc prescribed procedure or consulting thc iselect Cots-rmittee, appointed \ the 56 respondent, thereby depriving 2 eligible and senior ofhcers of their rightful oPPortunitY. Allegations of favoritism and violation of the Model Code of Conduct are raised as the 5rh respondent issued deputation orders favouring individuals based on recommendations made by a Member of the Legislative Assembiy during the period when the Model Code ol Conduct was in force for Lok Sabha General Elections, 2024. Petitioner relies on earlier instances where the government by G.O.Rt.No. 1O8, dated 25 Ol '2012, constituted a Select Committee for appointment of Commissioner' TWP and argues that such a procedure was not followed in the present CASC. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri PV- Krishnaiah

3. relied on the following judgments, in support o[ his contention that petitioner has locus to seek a writ of quo warranto ' ln Hari Bansh Lal a. Sahodar Prasod Mahtol, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: contrary to a statutory provision ln High Court of Guiarat v Gujarat Kishqn Mazdoor Panchlgat [(2003) 4 SCC 712 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 5651 (2010) 9 SCC 6ss ) (three Judgc Bench) Hon'ble S.B. Sinha, J. concurring .,vith the nrajority vierv held : (ISCC pp. Z3O-3t, paras 22-231

22. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of tltis nature is required to determine at the outsel. as to rvhether a case has been made out for issuance of a irrit ol certiorari or a \('rit of quc warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issrrt. a w.rit of quo ivarran to is a limited one. While issuing such a writ, the Court mereh- makt:s a public decraration but will not consider the resjrective impact of the candidates or other factors which mav be relevaLnt for issrrancc of rr rvrit of certiorari. (See R.K- Jqin v. [Inion af Indta l(l9g3l 4 SCC I 19 : l!t93 SCC (t-&S) 1128 : (1993) 25 A-tC 4641, SCC para ./4.) 23. A rvrit of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointrnent is cont.ar-v ro the statutory rules. (See Mor Mod.ern Coop. I,ransporl iiocietg Ltd v. Gout. <tf Haryana l(2OO2l 6 SCC 2691 .)" In Gambhirdq.n K. Gad.hlri o. State oJ Gujaratz, the Honble S;upreme Court held thus: ,,

17.In Anned Forces Medical Assn. v. [Jnion of India [Amted Forces Medical Assn. v. Union of India, (20C,6) 1 I SC(] 73 1 (l) : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) S48 (1)l , it has been observecl by this ,Court that strlct rules o[ locus standi are relaxed to some eKtent in a quo \r.arranto pror:eedings It is further observed in the sau decision that broadly statecL, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial remeCl, b1, u,hich am person, r.r,.ho holds an independenf substanti,,,e public office or franchise or libertr', is called upon to show by what right he hotcis the said office, [ranchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be du[-v determincd, anrl in case the finding is that the holder ol-the offic<: has no title, he $,orrld be ousted from that ofhce by a judicial order. tt is furt]rer obsc,ncd that in other words, the procedure of quo r.arr.anto gives the .jud.crary a weapon to control the executive from rnaking appointments t() public office against law and to protect citlzens from ' (2c221 s scc 179 \ \ 4 |, ., being deprived of public ofhce to which they have a right' These proceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of public ofhce. lt 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 ofltce in question is a public ofltce and is hetd by a usurper without legat authority, and that inevitably would lead to an enquiry, as to, whether, the appointment of the a-Ileged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not" The ls respondent justifies the appointment of the 4. 5fr respondent for administrative convenience' citing his SC community background, administrative experience' and reputation in medical profession' It is clarified that G O MslNo' 92, dated Og.Oa.2O24, sanctioned a regular post of Commissioner, TWP, thereby refuting petition'er'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' The 2nd respondent argues that the post of 5. Commissioner, TWP, 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 misplaced as it aPPlies only to to in-charge arrangements lt is Committee's involvement is regular apPointments, not 5 highlighted that seniority disputes among Civil Surgeons and pending writ petitions in that regard (W.p. No. 24516 of 2Ol9 and W.P. No. 21 159 of 2023) have delaye,C resolution of promotions a nd regular appointments and afte.r finalization of seniorigz issues, this respondent will place the proposals for promotion to the post of DCHS/programme Olficer as well as Joinr Commissioner as per the existing service mles.

6. It is the case of the unofficial 5m r.esponclernt that his appointr:-rent as Commissioner is valid, citing the absencc of regular Joint Commissioners in the TWp. ,l.he respondent denies allcgations of favoritism explaining that all deputation orders wcre issued in compliance with government directives and in the in terest of public service.

7. Ilr:ard learned Government pleaders for Seruices [l and Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Sri S. Vijay prashanth, learned Standing Counsel for the 2.d respondent, Sri Vijay B. Paropakari. I,:arned counsel for the 5u respondent.

8. 'l'h is Court, in view of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner, supra, acknou,ledges petitioner's l<>cus standi as a citizen and voter in Telangana to \ i l 6 lrle a writ of quo utarranto. However, this Court notes that appointment of the Sft respondent as Commissioner' TWP' 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, TWP was re-sanctioned through G'O Ms'No' 92 dated O9.08.2024, thereby validating the 5s respondent's appointment. As regards the deputation orders issued during the g. 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 ftde intent on the part of the 5fr respondent'- Further' it is to be noted that the involvement of Select Committee appfies to regular appointments but not to in-charge arrangements- Therfore, petitioner's reliance on G'O'Rt No' 1O8 dated 25.01.2012 is deemed inapplicable in the present context' Here, apt to recognize that it is the government's prerogativc to make intprim--2ppointments for administrative convenience' especially in the absence of regular Joint Commissioners ln l--.. { 7 light of the above observations, the Writ Petition lacks rnerit and the same is, liable to be dismissed. 10 COSTS

11. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any sha1l st-and closed /ffRUE COPY/' A sd/. N. SRIHARI REGISTRAR ON OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI P V KRISHNAIAH' Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI VIJAY B PAROPAKARI' Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI S VIJAY PRASHANTH' S C FOR TGWP IOPUCI 4 Two ccs to Gp for sERVI.ES-*, High court for tne state of relangana at ' Hyderabad [OUTI

5. Two CD CoPies BSRtp MP HIGH COURT DATED: 2210112025 l I { e ) o o ?,ar=- 'ite srr I€ q { * :l 4 ttB 2[25 t OEsPAi( BcO ORDER WP.No.12389 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS gc<8a F* 1j@'as