Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai dismissed a writ petition challenging an autonomous corporation’s decision to re-engage a recently retired officer as In-charge Chief Engineer on a short-term contractual basis and to invite applications to fill the Chief Engineer post on deputation. The petitioner, a senior officer in the Executive Engineer cadre, claimed that being highest in seniority entitled him to promotion or, at minimum, an in-charge posting to the higher post. The Court held that seniority in the lower cadre does not confer a right to promotion or to be placed in charge of a higher office, noting that such entrustment lies within administrative discretion. It directed the corporation to complete the regular appointment process for Chief Engineer within six months.

The writ petition was instituted by an officer working as an Executive Engineer in a State industrial development corporation, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner challenged the contractual re-appointment of a retired officer as In-Charge Chief Engineer and the issuance of an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Chief Engineer on deputation. The petitioner asserted seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineers and claimed entitlement to be entrusted with the charge of Chief Engineer following the retirement of the incumbent.

Also Read: AICTE Norms Inapplicable To Direct Recruitment Of Engineering College Professors By State PSCs: Supreme Court

It was contended that the impugned contractual engagement and deputation process were contrary to the applicable service rules governing the corporation, particularly the Madhya Pradesh TRIFAC Service Rules, 2017. Allegations of arbitrariness and violation of constitutional guarantees were raised. The respondents opposed the petition, stating that seniority alone did not confer a right to appointment, that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria prescribed under the rules, and that the contractual engagement was made to meet administrative exigencies. Statutory provisions relating to promotion, deputation, and contractual appointment were relied upon by both sides.

The Court examined whether the petitioner acquired any statutory right to be appointed or entrusted with charge of the post of Chief Engineer merely on the basis of seniority. It observed that “such a claim must be strictly examined within the four corners of the statutory service rules governing the field and cannot be adjudicated on equitable considerations alone.”

On scrutiny of the service rules, the Court recorded that “it is unambiguous that the post of Chief Engineer is to be filled 100% either by promotion or by deputation,” and further noted that eligibility was confined to officers holding the post of Superintending Engineer with the prescribed experience. The Court stated that “the feeder cadre for promotion to Chief Engineer is the post of Superintending Engineer and not Executive Engineer.”

Rejecting the contention founded on seniority, the Court stated that “seniority alone does not create any vested or indefeasible right to promotion or appointment to a higher post,” and clarified that appointment to a public post must strictly conform to statutory provisions. With regard to entrustment of charge, it was observed that “entrustment of charge is not a matter of right but a matter of administrative discretion.”

On the issue of contractual re-appointment of the retired officer, the Court examined the relevant service rules and recorded that “the Managing Director is vested with the authority to make contractual appointments for a period up to six months to meet immediate administrative exigencies.” It further observed that “the said proviso is not attracted in the present case, for the reason that the respondent was not a retired government servant but an employee of the corporation itself.”

Addressing the challenge under the contractual appointment rules, the Court stated that “the requirement of obtaining recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee and approval of the Cabinet does not arise in the facts of the present case.” The Court concluded that “such exercise of discretion by an autonomous body, in the absence of any statutory violation or mala fides, does not warrant judicial interference.”

The Court also observed that “in-charge or ad-hoc arrangements do not create any vested or enforceable right in favour of any employee,” and that judicial interference is limited to cases of mala fides or statutory violation, which were not established in the case.

Also Read: Aadhaar, Voter ID Not Conclusive Proof Of Date Of Birth; Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Anganwadi Sahayika Reinstatement Orders

The Court ordered that “the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. The respondent corporation is expected to take expeditious steps to fill up the post of Chief Engineer by regular appointment strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules. The process of appointment to the post of Chief Engineer shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of this order. Pending applications shall be be disposed of accordingly.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Shri A.K. Sethi, Senior Advocate, with Shri Ayush Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Manoj Munshi, Senior Advocate, with Shri Kushagra Singh, Advocate; Shri Aviral Vikas Khare, Advocate

Case Title: Satyabir Singh v. M.P. Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Another
Neutral Citation: 2026: MPHC-IND:1606
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 49437 of 2025
Bench: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai