1 Order reserved on 25.08.2025 Order pronounced on 31.10.2025 Order uploaded on 31.10.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4179 of 2016 S.P. Tiwari S/o Shri Ram Kishun Tiwari, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Lakhanpur, Post Tahsil Sutarra Pondi Uporaha District Korba Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. District Education Officer, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 3. Block Education Officer, Podi Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh 4. Guru Ghasidas Central University, through the Registrar, Koni Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Pension Wada Raipur Chhattisgarh 6. Ramawatar Singh Baghel, S/o Ram Pal Singh Baghel, Aged About 52 Years R/o Gram and Post Pasan, Via Pendra, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba, Presently posted as Upper Division Teacher At Government Middle School Khodri Pasan Tahsil Pondi Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Diksha Gauraha on behalf of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, PL For Respondent No.6 Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) C A V Order This petition has been preferred by the petitioner for issuance of writ in the nature of quo warranto against respondent No.6 herein, to oust him from the post of Upper Division Teacher, to direct the recovery of the amount paid to him and also for a direction for taking criminal action against him under the law. The petitioner has also sought for quashment of the promotion order dated 23.08.2011 pertaining to the respondent No. 6 issued by Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department. 2. Facts in brief: The respondent No.6 was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 31.03.1987 and joined on the said post on 11.04.1987. This initial appointment was made on the basis of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination annexed to the petition as Annexure P-3, which according to the petitioner is concocted and fabricated. Case of the petitioner is that though the said mark-sheet bears the Logo/Mono of the Madhya Pradesh Education Board, it has no seal or signature of the issuing authority, and that the year “1879” has been scored and replaced by “1979”. Vide order dated 23.08.2011 the respondent No.6 was promoted to the post of Upper Division Teacher for which the prescribed qualification is graduation. On 27.05.2016 the petitioner submitted an application to Respondent No.4/University alleging that the BA (Final Year) mark-sheet of the respondent No. 6 is forged and fabricated. On 28.06.2016 the petitioner also sent an application attaching the mark-sheet of BA (Final year) to the University expressing an apprehension of there being some overwriting in the same, and seeking clarification thereof. Vide letter dated 20.05.2016 sent to the petitioner by Public Information Officer, Examination 3 Cell, Guru Ghasidas University it was informed that no candidate with the name Ramavatar Singh Baghel son of Ramlal Singh Baghel had appeared in BA (final) year examination in the year 2000 from Dr. Bhawar Singh Porte College, Pendra. This being the situation, the petitioner has sought for the relief as mentioned above, by way of this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the respondent No.6 was appointed on the basis of forged and fabricated mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination as Assistant Teacher, and then his promotion to the post of Upper Division Teacher is also based on a concocted mark-sheet of Graduation, the writ in nature of quo warranto be issued against him. At the same time, the respondent No.6 is also sought to be ousted from service, recovery of the amount paid to him be made, and the promotion order issued by Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department be quashed. It is submitted that the post being held by respondent No. 6 is of substantive nature, and since he does not have even the graduation to his credit, he cannot be allowed to perform the job of teaching. In support of the arguments advanced, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo and others reported in (2014) 1 SCC 161 and in the matter of Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 8 SCC 273. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 out-rightly refutes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, and submits that respondent No.6 passed the Higher Secondary School Exam in the year 1979 from Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh Bhopal, and so also he did his graduation (BA) from APS University, Rewa in 4 the year 1990. He submits that both these original certificates were submitted by respondent No.6 at the time of document verification, whereas the petitioner never produced the original of the certificates which according to him are false and fabricated. It is submitted by the counsel for respondent No.6 that after due verification of the documents submitted by the respondent No.6, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1987 and then in the year 2011 was promoted as Upper Division Teacher. It is further submitted that respondent No.6 has not done his graduation from GGD University Bilaspur as alleged by the petitioner, rather as stated above, he did his graduation from APS University, Rewa. It is submitted that in the year 2013 the respondent No. 6 was given the charge of Sankul Prabhari at Sankul Kendra, Pasan in place of one Mehettar Lal Patel, but as said Mehettar Lal Patel did not hand over the same to respondent No.6, he was placed under suspension by Collector, Korba. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that in the year 2014, said Mehettar Lal Patel made a false complaint against respondent No. 6 at Police Station, Sarkanda, which subsequently was mutually compromised. On 26.07.2016 a complaint was also made by respondent No. 6 against the present petitioner and Mehettar Lal Patel for blackmailing and threatening him of lodging a false complaint against him. Present petitioner is also argued to have made a false complaint in the year 2022 against respondent No. 6 at Police Outpost Rampur, Police Station, Kotwali, Korba for submitting a false mark-sheet and getting employment. On 13.08.2022 a notice was issued by the concerned police station to the District Education Officer, Korba under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, on 13.09.2022 respondent No. 6 also made a complaint against the present petitioner. On 06.01.2023 the present petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before JMFC Katghora, District 5 Korba against respondent No. 6 where his statement was also recorded. On 29.09.2024 respondent No. 6 also made a complaint against the petitioner for threatening and demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- for taking the case back against him. 5. In substance, the case of the respondent No. 6 is that looking to the facts and circumstances narrated above, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner with mala fide intention owing to personal enmity, the writ of quo warranto which is a discretionary relief, cannot be granted against respondent No. 6, and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. State counsel however has duly assisted the Court during the course of argument. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record minutely. 7. Since the principal relief sought for by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ of quo warranto against respondent No.6, this Court first thinks it appropriate to deal with its nature, the scope and the necessitating circumstances under which such a remedy can be taken recourse to. 8. Quo Warranto is a Latin term that translates to ‘By what authority or warrant’ in English. It refers to a legal action or writ that challenges a person’s right to hold a public office, position, or franchise. It is typically used to question the legal basis or authority under which someone occupies a particular position or exercises certain powers. 9. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ‘quo warranto’ as “an English writ formerly requiring a person to show by what authority he exercises a public office, franchise, or liberty.” In law, quo warranto proceedings are initiated to 6 determine whether an individual or entity has the lawful authority to perform specific acts or hold a particular public office. The purpose of quo warranto actions is to prevent the abuse or usurpation of public offices and to ensure that those who hold such positions, do so legitimately and within the bounds of the law. To put it in simple words, it can be said that the writ of quo warranto protects citizens from the holder of a public office to which he has no right and calls upon the public office’s holder to show under what authority or warrant he is holding the office in question. It further protects the citizens from being deprived of the public office to which it has a legal right. 10. Now if the factual aspect of the case in hand is looked into, it has been stated in the return filed on behalf of respondent No.6 that he passed the Higher Secondary School Exam in the year 1979 from the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal vide mark-sheet filed as Annexure R-6/1. Thereafter, he completed his graduation (BA) from APS University, Rewa in the year 1990, and that both these original certificates were submitted by him before the Department at the time of document verification. These two certificates are also reflected in the service book of respondent No.6, relevant portion of which is filed along with the return as Annexure R-6/2. It is specifically denied by the respondent No.6 that the certificates annexed by the petitioner with the petition as Annexures P-3 and P-10 were ever submitted by him at the time of entry into the employment. It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein did not object to these two documents by filing any rejoinder etc. Not only this, since it is the averment of the petitioner that respondent No.6 entered into service as Assistant Teacher and then got promoted to the post of Upper Division Teacher based on the false and fabricated certificates filed with the petition as Annexure P-3 and P- 7 10, he ought to have substantiated this fact by filing the originals thereof, but he did not do anything like that. 11. Furthermore, the return filed on behalf of respondent No.6 reflects that on 26.07.2016 the respondent No.6 made a complaint (Annexure R-6/5) to the SDO (P) Katghora, District Korba against the present petitioner and one Mehattar Lal Patel to the effect that they were threatening him on phone to make a false complaint against him. Subsequently, on 08.08.2016 the petitioner herein is also stated to have filed a petition (WPS No. 4179/2016). It is also reflected from the documents on record that the present petitioner had filed a complaint against respondent No.6 in the Police Outpost Rampur, PS Kotwali, District Korba for submitting a false mark-sheet and obtaining employment. On 13.08.2022 the police of Police Outpost Rampur, Police Station Kotwali, District Korba had issued a notice (Annexure R-6/6) under Section 91 of the CrPC to District Education Officer, Korba to provide the verified copies of the documents including the mark-sheet submitted by respondent No.6 in order to secure the employment. Documents further go to show that on 13.09.2022 respondent No.6 had made a complaint (Annexure R-6/7) to Superintendent of Police, Korba against the present petitioner mentioning therein as to how he was mentally tortured by him for about seven long years by making a demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- to withdraw the complaint made against him. Petitioner is also stated to have filed an application (Annexure R-6/8) under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba where statement of respondent No.6 was also recorded vide Annexure R-6/9. On 29.09.2024 respondent No.6 also filed a complaint at Police Station Pasan, District Korba against the petitioner for threatening him and demanding a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 8 12. Thus if the exposition on facts as above is recapitulated as a whole, it is unequivocally unfolded that the documents in particular the certificates annexed with the petition and marked as Annexure P-3 and P-10 allegedly false and fabricated ones, do not appear to have been submitted by respondent No.6 to secure the employment as Assistant Teacher and then for promotion on the post of Upper Division Teacher. On the contrary, the respondent No.6 in the return filed by him has categorically stated that the documents (Aannexure P-3 and P-10) relied upon by the petitioner have no connection with him. The return filed on his behalf categorically states that he had submitted the mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination marked as Annexure R-6/1. As already stated, the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the return filed by respondent No.6 to rebut the averments made therein. Thus it can safely be inferred that the stand of the petitioner that the respondent No.6 obtained the public employment as assistant teacher on the basis of false and fabricated documents is totally misconceived and without any basis. That apart, the petitioner has also not been able to establish that the employment of the respondent No.6 is contrary to the statutory rules. The Supreme Court in the matter of B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Assn. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 has held in unequivocal terms as under:- “49. The law is well settled. 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 Quo Warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto is a limited one which can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.” 9 13. Furthermore, from the overall sequence of events where allegations and counter-allegations were being made by the parties against each other, the element of mala fide is lurking in the act of the petitioner which seems to have actuated him to open an attack on the employment of respondent No.6. wrecking personal vengeance. This malicious initiation against a person engaged in public employment cannot be countenanced in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been warned by the Supreme Court time and again that Courts must be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. Therefore, a malicious intention does not help a case; rather, it will likely lead to the rejection of the petition seeking issuance of quo warranto writ by a non-aggrieved party against the respondent No.6. 14. Dealing with the issue that the quo warranto writ cannot be invoked by a person having an ulterior motive hiding himself behind the cloak of bona fides, rather it should spell out the requirement of uberrima fides of the petitioner, the Supreme Court has held in the matter of Arun Kumar Agrawal. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 609 as under: “95. This now brings us to the preliminary objections raised by the respondents that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that it is not a bona fide petition. According to the respondents, the petitioner has been set up by interested parties. We entirely agree with the submissions made by the learned Attorney General that the first requirement for the maintainability of a public interest litigation is the uberrima fides of the petitioner. In our opinion, the petitioner has unjustifiably attacked the integrity of the entire selection process. It is virtually impossible to accept the submission that Respondent 6 was able to influence the decision-making 10 process which involves the active participation of ACC, a High- Powered Search-cum-Selection Committee with the final approval of the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister. The proposition is so absurd that the allegations with regard to mala fides could have been thrown out at the threshold. We have, however, examined the entire issue not to satisfy the ego of the petitioner, but to demonstrate that it is not entirely inconceivable that a petition disguised as “public interest litigation” can be filed with an ulterior motive or at the instance of some other person who hides behind the cloak of anonymity even in cases where the procedure for selection has been meticulously followed. The respondents have successfully demonstrated how the petitioner has cleverly distorted and misinterpreted the official documents on virtually each and every issue. In our opinion, the petition does not satisfy the test of utmost good faith which is required to maintain public interest litigation. We have been left with the very unsavoury impression that the petitioner is a surrogate for some powerful phantom lobbies.” 15. Having thus traversed the entire factual and legal scenario, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not been in a position to establish whether there has been usurpation of an office of a public nature by respondent No.6. The petitioner has not even tried to falsify the stand of the respondent No.6 taken in the return that the documents/certificates of Annexures P-3 and P-6 do not concern him, rather he had submitted the mark-sheet annexed to the return (Annexure R-6/1) for securing the employment as Assistant Teacher. Since the illegality or validity of employment of respondent No. 6 as alleged by the petitioner remained unestablished, rather it seems to be the offshoot of rivalry, enmity, jealousy or spite as is evident from the attacks and counter-attacks against each other, this Court has no hesitation to say that the petitioner having not acted in a bona fide manner, he cannot be held entitled to successfully invoke the 11 discretionary relief of quo warranto being sought for by him, particularly when the respondent No.6 is standing on the brink of departure from service. This Court has taken note of the decisions sought to be taken support of by the petitioner but being not in consonance with the factual aspect of the case in hand, they seem to be of no help to the petitioner. 16. In view of above, the petition being devoid of any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2025.10.31 17:23:42 +0530