1 2026:CGHC:25621 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7709 of 2022 1 - Ashok Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Shiv Kumar Agrawal Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Raweli, Radha Krishna Chowk, Ward No.4, Thana- Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Labour, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - President State Industrial Court Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - State Industrial Court Chhattisgrh Through Registrar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shri Harwansh Presently Working As In-Charge Registrar (Substantive Post Is Assistant Superintendent), State Industrial Court Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Secretary, Law And Legislative Affairs Department Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Registrar General High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, Bilaspur, District 2 Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7 - The Principal District And Sessions Judge, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, G.A. For respondent No.4 : Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 23.06.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate writ of Quo-Warranto/order/direction quashing the impugned note-sheet/memo dated 12.7.2019 (Annexure-P/1), after holding that, the respondent no.4 has been illegally given the charge of Incharge Registrar, State Industrial Court Chhattisgarh. 10.2 That, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate order/direction to the respondent authorities to appoint full time Registrar of State Industrial Court Chhattisgarh either by way of promotion as per the Schedule IV read with Rule 13 of the 'Rule of 1965' or by direct recruitment as per the Schedule III read with Rule 8 of the Rule of 1965. 10.3 Any other relief whatsoever, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2) Mr. Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is citizen of India and he has right to challenge any illegal, arbitrary and malafide action of the State pertaining to appointment of a person on a particular post, who lacks eligibility. Mr. Bhagat would further submit that the petitioner has filed this petition 3 seeking writ of quo warranto interalia on the ground that respondent No.4, who is Assistant Grade-III has been handed over additional charge of Assistant Registrar in the office of respondent NO.3. He would refer to the Chhattisgarh Labour Judiciary Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1965 and submit that the required eligibility criteria for post of Assistant Registrar is described in Schedule II. He would contend that respondent No.4 lacks eligibility criteria and therefore, decision taken by the Registrar appears to be erroneous. It is also contended that respondent No.4 was handed over charge of Assistant Registrar vide order dated 12.07.2019 but till date, no regular appointment is made. He would pray to allow this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions. They would submit that respondent No.4, who was working on the post of Assistant Grade-III in the office of respondent No.3 was handed over additional charge of Assistant Registrar as the said post was lying vacant. They would further submit that writ of quo warrantor cannot be issued in such a scenario as respondent No.4 is not holding substantive post of Assistant Registrar. They would contend that respondent No.4 was a senior Assistant Grade-III in the department and therefore, he was offered charge of Assistant Registrar in the office of respondent No.4. They would submit that this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of University of Mysore V. C.D. Govinda Rao, reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 held that before issuance of a writ of quo warranto, the Court must satisfy itself that the 4 office in question is a substantive public office and that the incumbent is holding such office without legal authority. The jurisdiction is intended to prevent usurpation of public office and not to examine every temporary or stop-gap administrative arrangement made by the executive. 6) In the matter of B. Srinivasa Reddy V. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees’ Association, reported in 2006(11) SCC 731, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of quo warranto would lie only when the appointment is contrary to statutory provisions. 7) In the present case, respondent No.4 has been appointed on temporary basis to the post of Assistant Registrar as regular appointment was not made at that point of time and therefore, in my opinion, writ of quo warranto cannot be issued. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, temporary arrangement was made by respondent No.4 in the year 2019 and we are in the year 2026 but till date, regular appointment has not been made, therefore, the respondent authorities are directed to take necessary steps in this regard. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha