Gauhati High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Plea, States “Appointment Not Contrary to Statutory Provisions” and Finds “No Material to Show Guilt” Against Special Chief Secretary (Forest)
Safiya Malik
The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the engagement of a retired officer as Special Chief Secretary (Forest) for the State of Assam, finding no violation of statutory provisions. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Kaushik Goswami concluded that the petition did not meet the threshold for issuance of a writ of quo warranto and noted, “a writ of quo warranto can only be issued where an appointment to a public office is made in violation of statutory provisions or rules.”
The petitioner, an environmental activist, sought the removal of the respondent from the said post and challenged notifications issued by the State Government facilitating the re-engagement. The petitioner alleged that the re-engagement undermined administrative propriety and contravened government norms and guidelines concerning the contractual appointment of retired officers.
The petitioner approached the High Court asserting that the respondent, a retired Indian Forest Service officer, was unlawfully re-appointed to the position of Special Chief Secretary (Forest) on a contractual basis following his retirement on 29 February 2024. The State Government, through its Personnel Department, issued a notification dated 29 February 2024 re-engaging the respondent for a period of one year commencing 1 March 2024. This engagement was followed by a subsequent notification dated 11 March 2024, granting the respondent full financial and administrative powers. A further extension was later granted via notification dated 21 February 2025, extending the engagement for another year.
The petitioner contended that the re-engagement contravened Rule 16(1) and Rule 16(1A) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 and Fundamental Rule 56(d). The petitioner also challenged the re-engagement on the ground that it violated guidelines issued under Office Memoranda dated 18 July 2018 and 16 February 2024, which govern the re-employment of retired government officers on a contractual basis.
Specifically, the petitioner argued that the appointment process bypassed the State Empowered Committee (SEC) mandated by the 2018 guidelines. The petitioner further alleged that the re-engagement of the respondent without specifying rare and exceptional circumstances, as required by the guidelines, undermined the cadre morale and resulted in the circumvention of regular promotional avenues within the department.
The petitioner also referred to multiple instances from the respondent’s prior service history, including show-cause notices from the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and alleged negligence during his tenure as Director of the Kaziranga National Park, wherein forty-four rhinoceroses were reportedly poached. Additionally, the petitioner cited misuse of funds, issuance of illegal permissions, and irregularities in wildlife surveys.
The Court recorded that quo warranto can only be issued where a public office is held without legal authority or where statutory rules are violated. Relying on precedents such as Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 655, and State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors., (2022) 16 SCC 318, the Court stated, “the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one.”
The Court further quoted, “it is settled that a writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.” Addressing the petitioner’s reliance on the Office Memorandum dated 18 July 2018, the Court observed, “these guidelines are mere administrative instructions/orders which are not statutory in nature.”
Referring to the memorandum issued on 16 February 2024, the Court noted that it allowed the engagement of a retired officer with prior approval of the Chief Minister without requiring approval from the SEC. The Bench recorded, “there is hardly any scope for this Court to interfere in such a policy decision.”
The Court further stated, “it is purely a policy matter whether the State Government requires to seek approval of the SEC or not before engaging a retired Government officer where the Hon’ble Chief Minister has already approved such engagement.”
The Bench also held that Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 and Fundamental Rule 56(d) do not apply to appointments made by the State Government, observing, “these rules are only applicable on re-employment of officer(s) by the Central Government and not by the State Government.”
On the petitioner’s allegations concerning the respondent’s past conduct, the Court observed, “from the above material, it is difficult to conclude that the conduct of the respondent disentitles him to continue as Special Chief Secretary (Forest) because the allegations leveled by the petitioner are mere allegations.” The Court noted that there was no material produced to show that the respondent had been found guilty or that any prosecution had been launched pursuant to the show-cause notice issued by MoEFCC.
The Court remarked, “the petitioner has personal grudge against the respondent,” and cited the ongoing proceedings before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) involving the petitioner and the respondent. The Bench added, “the petitioner has failed to demonstrate violation of any statutory provision.”
The Court dismissed the PIL and declared that no costs are imposed. It concluded that the petition lacked bona fide grounds and failed to satisfy the limited jurisdiction of quo warranto. The final order recorded, “in view of above discussions, we are of the view that the present PIL petition challenging the re-engagement of the respondent No.3 as Special Chief Secretary (Forest) is not maintainable.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Phukan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. P.N. Goswami, Additional Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. D.K. Sarmah, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Case Title: Rohit Choudhury v. State of Assam & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:2814-DB
Case Number: PIL/18/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Kaushik Goswami
[Read/Download order]
