Prashant Kumar Mishra ORDER
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
1. The petitioner, himself a lawyer, would seek quashment of the appointment of Respondent No. 3 Shri Rajneesh Singh Baghel, on the post of Deputy Advocate General by issuance of writ of quo warranto.
2. Challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 3 is based on the ground that at the time when respondent No. 3 was elected and working as Joint Secretary of the High Court Bar Association, he displaced and removed the name plates of the advocates, which they have put over the tables/chairs in the common hall of the Advocate Chambers. When respondent No. 3 was committing this wrongful action, the petitioner protested upon which the said respondent used his muscle power and beat the petitioner with the help of other advocates, at the same time using filthy abuses and criminally intimidating him. On petitioner's report, Crime No. 250/2012 was registered by the concerned police for offence under Sections 294, 506, 323/34 of the IPC and the trial is pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belha. On respondent No. 3 being appointed as Deputy Advocate General vide State Government's order dated 2.1.2019, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Advocate General and the Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department on 4.1.2019, however, no action has been taken. Hence this writ petition.
3. It is argued that respondent No. 3 lacks institutional integrity attached to the office of Deputy Advocate General and appointment has been made without effective consultation with the Advocate General. Referring to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matters of Centre for PIL & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. JT 2011 (2) SC 613, N. Kannadasan Vs. Ajoy Khose and Others MANU/SC/0926/2009 : (2009) 7 SCC 1, State of Punjab Vs. Salil Sabhlok and Others MANU/SC/0166/2013 : (2013) 5 SCC 1, Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another Vs. Mehar Singh MANU/SC/0620/2013 : (2013) 7 SCC 685 and Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Sunil Samdaria Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others {Civil Writ Petition No. 2624/2014, decided on 23.4.2015}. It is argued that owing to pendency of criminal case against respondent No. 3, he is not suitable for the post of Deputy Advocate General, therefore, his appointment deserves to be quashed.
4. The present writ petition has not been preferred in the form of Public Interest Litigation, but the same has been submitted as if any of the petitioner's statutory or constitutional right has been violated. The petitioner may be personally aggrieved viz a viz the offence which the respondent No. 3 has committed in that alleged incident happened in the Bar Room at the time when respondent No. 3 was holding the post of Joint Secretary, but the same is not referable to eligibility of respondent No. 3 and the same would not make respondent No. 3 being ineligible for appointment on the post of Deputy Advocate General because no such norms have been laid down by the State Government for choosing a lawyer for appointment as Deputy Advocate General. The petitioner has not brought to the notice of this Court any such eligibility norms, non-fulfillment of which would attract issuance of writ of quo warranto.
5. In the present writ petition, the petitioner would seek issuanc........