1 2026:CGHC:27471 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3195 of 2021 1 - Rahul Giri Goswami S/o Manendra Giri Goswami Aged About 30 Years R/o C-4, Sector 3, Near Choupati Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary , General Administration Department, Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Hire Education, Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhavwan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Directorate Of Higher Technical Educaton Block 3, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kusha Bhau Thakre Patrakarita Awam Jansanchaar Vishwavidyalaya Through Its Registrar, Kathadih, Sunder Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Pankaj Nayan Pandey Through Registrar , Kusha Bhau Thakre Patrakarita Awam Jansanchaar Vishwavidyalaya, Kathadih , Sunder Nagar , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ashutosh Mandavi Through Registrar , Kusha Bhau Thakre Patrakarita Awam Jansanchaar Vishwavidyalaya, Kathadih , Sunder Nagar , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Narendra Tripathi Through Registrar , Kusha Bhau Thakre REKHA SINGH 2 Patrakarita Awam Jansanchaar Vishwavidyalaya, Kathadih , Sunder Nagar , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr.Yogeshwar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3/State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, GA For respondent No.4 : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Advocate For respondent No.5 : Mr. Sharad Mishra,Advocate For respondents No.6 &7 : None appears Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 03.07.2026 1) Heard. 2) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in nature of Quo Warranto to the Respondents to remove Redpondent no.5, 6 and 7 from the post which they have usurped, along with recovery of whole amount paid to them as salary till disposal of the case. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case. 10.3 An affidavit in support of this writ petition. 3) Facts in brief are that the petitioner is a journalist and he has challenged the appointment orders of respondents No.5, 6 & 7, who were appointed as Reader(Journalist) and Lecturer(A.P.R.) respectively under respondent No.4, by seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto. It is pleaded that a complaint was made by Shailendra Khandelwal before Lokayukt against appointment orders of respondents No.5 to 7 making allegations of corruption 3 in their appointments. Lokayut submitted its report, wherein, it was found that respondents No.5 to 7 were granted additional marks against experience and fellowship award etc. It is further pleaded that a representation was made by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Governor but no action was taken. It is further stated that respondents No.5 to 7 were appointed contrary to UGC Norms and thus, they usurped public office. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the respondents No. 5 to 7 did not possess the requisite qualifications but they were called for interview. It is further argued that Lokayukt clearly recorded findings that the additional marks were awarded to respondents No.5 to 7 ignoring their entitlements. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of University of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and another, reported in AIR 1965 SC 491, Chairman, Railway Board Vs. Chandrima Das(Mrs) and others, reported in 2000(2) SCC 465, State of Punjab Vs. Salil Sabhlok and others, reported in 2013(5) SCC 1,Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha Vs. Dhobei Sahoo and others, reported in 2014(1) SCC 161. He would submit that the petition may be allowed and a writ in the nature of quo-warranto may be issued against respondents No.5 to 7 as they usurped public office. 5) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the 4 respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the order of appointment of respondents No.5 to 7. It is argued that respondents No.5 to 7 were found eligible for appointment and therefore, they were duly appointed by the Selection Committee. It is also argued that there is no allegation with regard to contravention of statutory Recruitment Rules and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7) In the matter of Salil Sabhlok (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with concept of ‘locus standi’ for filing writ of quo warranto held as under : “150. The appointment of the Chairperson of the Punjab Public Service Commission is an appointment to a constitutional position and is not a “service matter”. A PIL challenging such an appointment is, therefore, maintainable both for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto and for a writ of declaration, as the case may be. 151. In a case for the issuance of a writ of declaration, exercise of the power of judicial review is presently limited to examining the deliberative process for the appointment not meeting the constitutional, functional and institutional requirements of the institution whose integrity and commitment needs to be maintained or the appointment for these reasons not being in public interest. 152 The circumstances of this case leave no room for doubt that the notification dated 7th July 2011 appointing Mr. Harish Rai Dhanda was deservedly quashed by the High Court since there was no deliberative process worth the name in making the appointment and also since the constitutional, functional and institutional requirements of the Punjab Public Service Commission were not met. 153. In the view that I have taken, there is a need for a word of caution to the High Courts. There is a likelihood of comparable challenges being made by trigger-happy 5 litigants to appointments made to constitutional positions where no eligibility criterion or procedure has been laid down. The High Courts will do well to be extremely circumspect in even entertaining such petitions. It is necessary to keep in mind that sufficient elbow room must be given to the Executive to make constitutional appointments as long as the constitutional, functional and institutional requirements are met and the appointments are in conformity with the indicators given by this Court from time to time. 154. Given the experience in the making of such appointments, there is no doubt that until the State Legislature enacts an appropriate law, the State of Punjab must step in and take urgent steps to frame a memorandum of procedure and administrative guidelines for the selection and appointment of the Chairperson and members of the Punjab Public Service Commission, so that the possibility of arbitrary appointments is eliminated.” 8) In the matter of Chandrima Das (supra) deals with concept of ‘locus standi’ for filing writ of quo-warranto held as under : “15.The existence of a legal right, no doubt, is the foundation for a petition under Article 226 and a bare interest, may be of a minimum nature, may give locus standi to a person to file a Writ Petition, but the concept of "Locus Standi" has undergone a sea change, as we shall presently notice. In Dr. Satyanarayana Sinha vs. S. Lal & Co. Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1973 SC 2720 = (1973) 2 SCC 696, it was held that the foundation for exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226 is ordinarily the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself. In writs like Habeas Corpus and Quo Warranto, the rule has been relaxed and modified.” 9) In the present petition, the petitioner has not pleaded his locus but as writ of quo-warranto has been sought for, in my opinion, the allegations made against respondents No.5 to 7 can be looked into as a petition filed by a stranger seeking writ of quo warranto is competent. 10) It is alleged that respondents No.5 to 7 were granted additional marks against experience and fellowship award but no document has been placed to demonstrate these facts. 11) The petitioner has not annexed relevant Recruitment Rules to 6 demonstrate the fact that respondents No.5 to 7 were lacking eligibility and their appointments were made contrary to Service Rules. 12) Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported in 2022 (5) SCC 179, held that jurisdiction of High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one, which can only be issued if person holding a public office does not fulfill eligibility criteria prescribed or when the appointment to the said post is contrary to Statutory Rules. Relevant para 18 is reproduced herein below : “18.Thus, as per the law laid down in a catena of decisions, the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one, which can only be issued when a person is holding the public office does not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed to be appointed to such an office or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. Keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on the jurisdiction of the Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto, the factual and legal controversy in the present petition is required to be considered.” 13) In the entire petition, it is nowhere pleaded that respondents No.5 to 7 also not fulfill eligibility criteria prescribed in the Rules and they were appointed dehors the Recruitment Rules. 14) Taking into consideration the above-discussed and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above-referred matters, in my opinion, this petition is misconceived and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha