JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner is permitted to delete prayer No. 2 from prayer clause of the writ petition.
2. Heard Mrs. Tahmina Punwani, Senior Advocate, assisted by Miss. Pushpila Bisht, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shishir Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.
3. The petitioner has alleged that he was appointed as Sub-Engineer in U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited and at present working as a regular employee of the Nigam since 7.3.1991. The petitioner has further alleged that he was promoted from time to time and lastly he was promoted on the post of Additional Project Manager, which is equivalent to the post of Additional Senior Architect.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in a most arbitrary and illegal manner and without any authority of law, the respondent No. 3 is holding the post of Managing Director of the Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., She further submits that the officiating appointment of respondent No. 3 on the post of Managing Director is against the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. (Engineers and Architects) Service Rules, 1980, as respondent No. 3 was not holding the post of Chief General Manager on regular basis and he was never appointed as the General Manager on regular basis in the Nigam. She further submits that the respondent No. 2 being a Corporation and instrumentality of the State and as such the State Government can not act in a manner which may affect the public at large and the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Managing Director deserves to be quashed.
5. Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and respondent No. 3 is officiating on the post of the Managing Director of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. on the basis of an order issued by the State Government dated 31.03.2007. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Association and Ors. and on the strength of the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, he submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. He further submits that the petitioner has not explained laches in filing the writ petition after more than eleven months.
6. Sri Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner is a suspended employee of the Corporation and against him there are serious charges of financial irregularities. He further submits that respondent No. 3 was promoted on the post of General Manager on 03.09.2002 and thereafter by the order dated 8.7.2003 he was promoted on the post of the Chief General Manager on officiating capacity in stop-gap arrangement and he is only the Chief General Manager in the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Lucknow. He further submits that his appointment on officiating capacity in stop-gap arrangement of the Managing Director is in accordance with the U.P Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. (Engineers and Architects) Service Rules, 1980.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
8. The petitioner has alleged that he is a regular employee of the U.P. Rajkiya Niram Nigam Ltd. and has been promoted on the post of Additional Project Manager, which is equivalent to the post of Additional Senior Architect. The State Government by the order dated 31.03.2007, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition has appointed respondent No. 3 on the post of Managing Director on officiating capacity in stop-gap arrangement. Sri Prashant Chandra, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that respondent No. 3 was promoted on the post of General Manager on 03.09.2002 and thereafter he was promoted on the post of Chief General Manager on officiating capacity in stop-gap arrangement on 8.7.2003. The petitioner has also alleged that the appointment of respondent No. 3 as A.G.M/G.M and ad hoc C.G.M. is under challenge in a writ petition, which is pending. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that respondent No. 3 is only Chief General Manager in the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., The Rule prescribes that Chief General Manager/General Manager may be promoted on the post of Managing Director. Since respondent No. 3 is the only person who is holding the post of Chief General Manager in the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, Lucknow since 8.7.2003, the State Government has appointed him on the post of Managing Director on officiating capacity in stop-gap arrangement. It cannot be said that the appointment of respondent No. 3 is contrary to the statutory rules. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Association and Ors. (Supra) has held that 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. We are of the view that a writ in the nature of quo warranto cannot be granted to the petitioner as respondent No. 3 is holding the post of Managing Director on officiating capacity in stop-gap arrangement on the basis of an order dated 31.3.2007 issued by the State Government, which is the competent authority.
9. The writ petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.