t& HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 6531 of200S ^ Lochan Prasad Maravi Versus D.R. Deshmukh and others QRDER ,''( Postfor: 25.07.20)7 Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge r Afi H HIGf+COURTOF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WritPetitfon No. 6531 of 2006 Petitioner Lochan PrasadMaravf (ST)S/o SagauRam, Aged 55 Yrs., Ex-Process Writer, R/o Wllage — Khairi, Tah- Takha^>ur, Distt.- Bitaspur Versus Resoondente 1 D.R. Deshmukh <pfsS. Judge) now Addittenal Judge, C.G. High Court Bilaspur. 2 Union of India through Secretary, Deptt. of Law and Ju^ice Jaisalmer House, New Delhi. RegistrarGeneral, C.G. High CourtBnaspur Appearance: Shri h4ut(esh Shanna, counsel for the petitioner. ORDER (25.07.2007) Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. (1) The petitioner, who was appointed as a Process Writter in the District Court Establishment, Bflaspur and was removed pursuanttoa departmental enquiry vide order No. 628fll-16-17iW dated 14.9.1999, passed by respondent No.1 white he was working as a District and Sessions Judge, Bllaspur, haschaltenged the validity of elevation of respondent No.1 as an Acklitional Judge of the High Court of ChhatBsgarh sayfng it to be contrary to the provisions of the Constitution oftndla. (2) As stated in the petiUon, the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. He makes allegations that during the year 1997, respondent No.1, while he was working as the Disfrict and Sessions Judge, Bilaspyr, appointed as many as 12 employees but none ofthem f» Writ Petition No. 6531 of2006 ^ belonged to SC/ST category. He pteaded that Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchft Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Aratehan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1994) mandates for the reservation of 20% vacancies for ST candidate and 16 % vacancies for SC candidate in Class !11 and Ctass IV posts, but it was not followed and even against the reserve vacancy of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 illegally appointed a general candidate one Arvind Mishra vide orderNo. 573/2-. 11-3/95 Bilaspur dated 20.11.2000. He further pteaded that since there is a penal provisions under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act which provides for punishment with imprisonment whteh may extend to 3 months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both against ofRcer who violates the provisions of the Act, therefore, an action of maklng appointment against the roster by respondent No.1 was totatly against the law but instead of tak"ng strict actson against him, his name was recommended by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the then members of the collegiums, ttierefore, such elevation being againstthe Constitution, deserves to bs quashed. (3) During the course of argumente, teamed counsel for the petitioner raised only one point. He submltted (tiat since the actfon of respondent No.1, by not fotlowing the roster in the appointments made by him during the couree of his tenure as the Distrt'ct and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, was illegal and malafide, therefore, his case should have been considered to initiate the penal action against him but instead of doing so, the collegium recommended his name and ultimately, he was elevated as an Additional Judge of this Hfgh Court. He further aigued that for quashment of the removal order of the r WritPetiti»t_Na6531 of2006 ^ petih'oner and for taking such penal action as also for the purpose of enquiry through CBI, an earlier petition vide No. 884/2004 was also filed, which is pending for its disposal. In support of his argumente that respondent No.1 had violated the roster, he referred to the report of Districl Judge, Bilaspur dated 19 April, 2002 (Annsxure-P/3), which shows the list of appointments made by respondent No.1. (4) I have heard the learned counsel fbr the petitioner at fength and have also perused the records of the writ petition. (5) For appreciation, it is important to refer certaln provisions of the Act of 1994. Section 6 of the aforesaid Act provides for penalty. tt is quoted as under- "6. Penalty.- (1) Any appointing authority or officer or employee entrusted with the responsibility under sub-sechon (1) of Section 5 who willfully acts in a manner intended to contravene or defeat the purposes of this Act shatl, on conwction, be punishable with imprisonment which may ertend to three months or w'th fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or w'th both. (2) No court shalt take cognizance of a ofFence under this section except vsn'th the previous sanction ofthe State Government." Section 3 of the Act provides for ite apptication. For ready reference, it is also quoted as follows: "3. Application of the Act- This Act shall apply to the establishment as defined in this Act but shall not apply to the following \ emptoyments:- Writ Petition No. 6531 of2006 (1) any employments under the Govemment of India; (2) Compassionate appointments made on account of the death of Govemment servants or otherwise in accordance w'th general ordere ofthe Government; (3) Posts to be filled by transfer or by deputation; (4) Casual appointmente; (5) Appointments made to the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Sevice." (6) A bare perusal of Section 3 would show that the provisions of this Act are not to be apptied to the employment of casual appointments in any establishment. The word 'Establishment' has atso been deflned in the Act vide clause (b) of Secft'on 2 which says that in this Act, unless the context otherwfse, requires,- "Establishment" means any offlce of the State Government or of a local authority or stetutory authority constitutecf under any Act of the State for the time being in force, or a Unwersity or a Company, Corporation or a Cooperative Society in which not less than fifty one percent of the paid up share capital is hetd by the State Govemment and includes a work charge or contingency paid establishmente. However, the words 'Casual Appointments' have not been defined under the Act, therefore, a general meaning of the said words used by Legislature in sub-section (4) of Section 3 has to be derived, which would be an occasional appointment, not regutar, or for a limited purpose or temporary appointment for such purpose. Therefore, if the appoinftnents made in any establishment were of casual nature, the provisions of this Act are not to be applied. Writ Petition No. 6531 of20(K (7} If we examme the document filed by the petitioner as Annexure- P/3 (Page 29 ofthe paper-book), which is a list of appointment orders issued by respondent No.1 in between 1.4.97 to 20.4.2001, which afso includes the appointment order of Arvind Mishra (supra), it would appear that according to the said document, afl these appoinfrnents were made as the casual appointmente at that point of time as fs clear from the heading of the document, which is said to be issued from the ofRce of District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and the petifioner relied on it. The heading porh'on ofthe document is as follows: ":; 1i>W^ ^fvtt ^ 'WSI •<4iqiq)?l, Rcllfl^ (ynil'ti'ifi) ;: ^ft feftT ^Fi®,drt>l<flrl ^icTT ^ 'flsi T-^l<4Ml%l, R<?fl<i^'< <»l4t}|(?l ^ <il|ctlR*1<tl f^tRt ^ ^n Tn^ ^ *4^iR4i, 'Erga.t/'gcN Nt ^tRii'i ^t ^it RyRriiii ^t ^ t ^r 'H'si'Kri sn^jt ?A ^it -" (8) Therefore, it is ctear that in such appointments, the provisions of the Act, 1994, were not appticable byvlrtue ofsub-section (4) ofSection 3 of the said Act and the pleadings with regard to wolation of roster and the Act leading to prosecution and penalty as per Section 6 of the Act becomes unfounded and the argumente, advanced by leamed counsel for the petitioner in this regard, cannot be accepted on facts as also on the basis of their own documente. (9) This is alt as to how a petftion chaltenging the elevation of a Judge of the High Court has been filed. It clearty appears that the petition has been filed in most negfigent manner, even without property going through ttie provisions of 'aw and the pteadrngs have been set up r 6 Writ Petition No. 6531 of2006 in a casual and negtigent manner. It appeare that the petitioner was removed from the services, on account of a departmental enquiry, in the regime of respondent No.1, therefore, such a petift'on has been fiied making such allegaBons agas'nst his etevation as a Judge of the High Court. (10) The petition appears to be malafide, fabutous and based upon no material for the cause of action alt^edly shown to have arisen in favour of the petitioner. This is not the first attempt of the petitioner, this a consecutive petition by the same petitioner making such altegatfons, which appears to have been filed with an ulterior motive just to malign the dignity of the hsgh offlce of the Judge. The petition deserves to be dismissed and for such a fabulous petition, the petitioner shall be liabte to pay cost. (11) In the result, the petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand), which shall be deposited bythe petitioner. Sdi- SunaKumarSinha Judge vatti