Absence Of Complaint From An Affected Person: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging NHPC CMD Appointment
The Petitioner, Ashwini Kumar, had sought a Writ of quo warranto against the appointment and a declaration that the selection process undertaken by the Public Enterprises Selection Board was illegal.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the appointment of the Respondent as the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC), while remarking that there was an absence of any complaint from an ‘affected person’.
The Petitioner, Ashwini Kumar, had sought a Writ of quo warranto against the appointment and a declaration that the selection process undertaken by the Union of India ("UOI") and the Public Enterprises Selection Board ("PESB") was illegal. The Court remarked, “I am therefore of the view that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate even a minimal connection with recruitment to the post in question, and a writ petition, at his instance, does not warrant issuance of a writ of quo warranto.”
A Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan remarked, “This case has raised a question of whether a petition for a writ of quo warranto, when sought by a person with no personal interest at all, should be heard as an ordinary writ petition relating to service matters, or as a PIL. The Registry had raised a specific defect on this point, in response to which counsel for the petitioner only cited the judgments in Rajesh Awasthi and Suresh Gaur. In order to obviate such controversy in further cases, particularly in cases such as the present one, where locus was not demonstrated, I am of the view that the petition should be treated as a PIL, and subjected to the same Rules as applicable to PILs, including with regard to the bona-fides of the litigant. Subject to directions of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the Registry is directed to take necessary steps in this regard.”
Advocate Navendu Kumar appeared for the Petitioner, while CGSC Ripu Daman Bhardwaj represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner argued that the Respondent was ineligible on two grounds. Firstly, he was on probation for one year and therefore did not satisfy the regular capacity employment requirement. Second, it was contended that the Respondent had been in the eligible pay scale (Rs. 1,50,000-3,00,000) for less than the stipulated one year for internal candidates as of the vacancy date. It was further submitted that PESB lacked the power to relax eligibility criteria, asserting that this power is vested solely in ACC under Clause J of the Compendium of Guidelines in Board Level Appointments in CPSE (the Guidelines).
The Petitioner cited an Office Memorandum which indicated PESB's decision to relax the one-year service criterion by up to 30 days for internal candidates, a relaxation that benefited Respondent and four others who were two days short of the requirement.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court remarked, “It has clearly been stated in the counter affidavit that there were only five other candidates who became eligible as a result of the relaxation, and factually, all of them applied for the post and were called for interview. In these circumstances, no affected candidate or potential candidate was excluded from consideration due to the relaxation granted by PESB. Having regard to these particular facts, I do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the appointment of respondent No. 7 on the legal principles laid down in the judgments cited by Mr. Kumar. The appointment of respondent No. 7 is also valid only for a further period of approximately one month, until 30.06.2025.”
The Bench stated, “The only allegation of the petitioner – a complete stranger to the process – is that PESB had relaxed the eligibility conditions in violation of the Guidelines, whereas the power of relaxation was vested only in ACC. However, the relaxation of the eligibility criteria was ultimately granted by ACC itself, in its order dated 06.08.2024. This was in exercise of the power under Clause J of the Guidelines, the existence of which has not been disputed.”
The Court further explained, “In fact, other than his citizenship, the petition is conspicuously silent as to any particulars, including the petitioner’s educational qualifications, professional or occupational status, etc. There is also no averment whatsoever, as to the petitioner’s interest or connection with the appointment to the post of CMD in HPCL. I am therefore of the view that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate even a minimal connection with recruitment to the post in question, and a writ petition, at his instance, does not warrant issuance of a writ of quo warranto.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Having regard to all these factors, including the absence of any complaint from any affected person, the undisputed grant of ACC approval, and the fact that the term of respondent No. 7 is, in any event, coming to an end in a period of one month, I do not consider this to be an appropriate case for grant of discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Ashwini Kumar v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4505)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Navendu Kumar and Karan Chopra
Respondents: CGSC Ripu Daman Bhardwaj; Advocates Kushagra Kumar, Amit Kumar Rana, Abhinav Bhardwaj, Avneesh Arputham and Ankit Sharma