SUNIL KUMAR MAHTO vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

2026:JHHC:32271
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (S) No. 3641 of 2026
Sunil Kumar Mahto, Aged about 46 years, son of L.C. Mahto,
Resident of Katari Bagan, Samlong, P.O. & P.S. Namkom,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834010.
…… Petitioner
V E R S U S
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary,
Project Bhawan, P.O. + P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
2. The Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand Office of the
Transport Commissioner, FFM Building, Dhurwa, P.O. +
P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Joint Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand, Office of
the Transport Commissioner, FFM Building, Dhurwa, P.O. +
P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Sri Vijay Gautam, Fathers name not known to the
petitioner, Motor Vehicle Inspector (on deputation), currently
posted at Hazaribagh, P.O. + P.S.-Hazaribagh, District-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
5. Sri Suraj Hemram, Fathers name not known to the
petitioner, Motor Vehicle Inspector (on deputation), currently
posted at Jamshedpur, P.O. + P.S.-Bistupur, District- Purbi
Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
6. Sri Sunil Kumar Ram, Fathers name not known to the
petitioner, Motor Vehicle Inspector (on deputation), currently
posted at Latehar, P.O. + P.S.-Latehar, District- Latehar,
Jharkhand.

7. Sri Ravin Ajay Singh, Fathers name not known to the
petitioner, Motor Vehicle Inspector (on deputation), currently
posted at Gumla, P.O. + P.S.-Gumla, District-Gumla,
Jharkhand.
8. Sri Kamal Kishore, Fathers name not known to the
petitioner, Motor Vehicle Inspector (on deputation), currently
posted at Bokaro, P.O. + P.S.-Bokaro, District- Bokaro,
Jharkhand.
9. Sri Vimal Kishore Singh, Fathers name not known to the
petitioner, Motor Vehicle Inspector (on deputation), currently
posted at Ranchi, P.O + P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
1

2026:JHHC:32271
10. Sri Abhay Kumar, Fathers name not known to the
petitioner, Motor Vehicle Inspector (on deputation), currently
posted at Dhanbad, P.O + P.S.- & District- Dhanbad,
Jharkhand. …… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
….…

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Arpan Mishra, Adv.
For the Resp.-State : Mr. K.K.Singh, S.C.-V
Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V
….…..
C.A.V. ON: 24/09/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:04/11/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioner for the following reliefs;
(a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto directing
Respondents No. 4 to 10 to show cause by what authority they
hold the statutory post of Motor Vehicle Inspector in the
districts of Jharkhand, and upon the return to said rule, to
quash and set aside their deputation/appointment to the said
post as being without jurisdiction and contrary to the MVI
Cadre Rules, 2010 (as amended in 2020) and the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as against the order dated
29.01.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4233 of 2013 by Hon'ble
Jharkhand High Court;
And
(b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing and setting aside Office Order No.
वा०आ०सं० - प į र० िव० ( शमन )-18/2018, dated 17.03.2026, issued
by the Joint Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand.
And
(c)Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondents No. 1, 2
and 3 to forthwith comply with the direction issued by this
Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 4233 of 2013 vide order dated
29.01.2015, and to initiate and complete the process of
regular recruitment and appointment of Motor Vehicle
Inspectors through the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission
strictly in accordance with the MVI Cadre Rules, 2010 as
amended, within a time-bound period to be fixed by this
Hon'ble Court;
And
(d)Issue a direction declaring that no person who is not a
member of the Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Inspector Cadre, duly
2

2026:JHHC:32271
appointed through the process prescribed under the MVI
Cadre Rules, shall be allowed to exercise the powers and
discharge the duties of a Motor Vehicle Inspector under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in any district of Jharkhand;
And
(e) Issue ex-parte ad interim stay / interim relief staying the
operation of Office Order dated 17.03.2026 and restraining
Respondents No. 4 to 10 from exercising any powers of
compounding under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 or from discharging any statutory functions of a Motor
Vehicle Inspector in any district of Jharkhand, pending
disposal of this writ petition.

Case of the Petitioner
3. The petitioner is aggrieved of the continued posting
/deputation of persons not belonging to the Jharkhand Motor
Vehicle Inspector Cadre, not possessing the prescribed
eligibility and qualifications, and not appointed under the
Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Inspector Cadre (Recruitment,
Promotion and Other Conditions of Service) Rules, 2010 as
amended by the Amendment Rules, 2020 for the post of Motor
Vehicle Inspector in various district of Jharkhand.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the private
respondents do not possess the eligibility criteria for posting
on deputation on the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. Further,
it is the case of the petitioner that the process of regular
selection and appointment of Motor Vehicle Inspector has to be
completed at the earliest.
Case of the State Government
5. The Respondent No.4 has been appointed as regular
Motor Vehicle Inspector. A meeting was held under the
3

2026:JHHC:32271
Chairmanship of the Chief Minister on 15.12.2020 and it was
directed to depute persons as Motor Vehicle Inspector
(hereinafter referred as “MVI”) who are fulfilling the criteria to
be selected as MVI until regular recruitment process is
completed. The sanctioned posts of MVI have been increased
to 70 and 50 posts have been filled up through regular
recruitment.
Case of the Private Respondents
6. The private respondents have filed an affidavit and
stated that in terms of Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Inspector
Cadre Rules, 2010 as amended in 2020, the private
respondents fulfill the eligibility criteria and qualifications for
the post of MVI. The private respondents have pointed out at
paragraph-7 of the affidavit that the private respondents fulfill
the eligibility criteria and qualifications.
7. It has been pointed out by the private respondents
that the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 29.01.2015
passed in W.P.(C) No. 4233 of 2013 wherein the writ petition
was withdrawn and a direction was given to the State of
Jharkhand to ensure that in future a person who is not
competent to hold the post of MVI may not be deputed on such
post.
The private respondents have tried to distinguish the
order dated 29.01.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4233 of 2013.
4

2026:JHHC:32271
The petitioner has not challenged the deputation of the private
respondents since the year 2021 and the writ petition has been
filed in the year 2026 and no explanation has been given for
the delay.
8. Further case of the private respondents is that the writ
of quo-warranto is not maintainable as it lies only where a
person usurps a public office and the appointment has been
made contrary to statutory provisions.
9. The prayer with respect to the writ of mandamus is
not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has not
disclosed any credentials in the writ petition nor has any locus
for seeking such remedy. The petitioner has no legal vested
right for seeking a writ of mandamus.
Analysis
10. Before we enter into a substantive analysis of the
submissions, it would be appropriate to deal with the limits of
the writ of quo warranto.

11. Through a line of cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
laid out the terms on which the writ of quo warranto may be
exercised. In University of Mysore versus C.D. Govindra Rao,
reported in (1964) 4 SCR 575 a Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court has held that:
6…..
“Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial
enquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive
public office, or franchise, or liberty, is called upon to show by
5

2026:JHHC:32271
what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty; if the
inquiry leads to the finding that the holder of the office has no valid
title to it, the issue of the writ of quo warranto ousts him from that
office. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto confers
jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control executive
action in the matter of making appointments to public offices
against the relevant statutory provisions; it also protects a citizen
from being deprived of public office to which he may have a right.
It would thus be seen that if these proceedings are adopted
subject to the conditions recognized in that behalf, they tend to
protect the public from usurpers of public office; in some cases,
persons, not entitled to public office may be allowed to occupy
them and to continue to hold them as a result of the connivance of
the executive or with its active help, and in such cases, if the
jurisdiction of the courts to issue writ of quo warranto is properly
invoked, the usurper can be ousted and the person entitled to the
post allowed to occupy it. It is thus clear that before a citizen can
claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy the court, inter alia,
that the office in question is a public office and is held by usurper
without legal authority, and that necessarily leads to the enquiry
as to whether the appointment of the said alleged usurper has
been made in accordance with law or not. ”
(emphasis supplied)
12. In High Court of Gujarat versus Gujarat Kishan
Mazdoor Panchayat reported in (2003) 4 SCC 712 , the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held:
“22. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of
this nature is required to determine at the outset as to whether a case
has been made out for issuance of a writ of certiorari or a writ of quo
warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo
warranto is a limited one. While issuing such a writ, the Court merely
makes a public declaration but will not consider the respective impact
on the candidates or other factors which may be relevant for issuance
of a writ of certiorari. (See R.K. Jain v. Union of India, SCC para 74.)
23. A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment
is contrary to the statutory rules. (See Mor Modern Coop. Transport
Society Ltd. versus Financial Commr. & Secy. to Govt. of Haryana) .”
13. In B. Srinivasa Reddy versus Karnataka Urban Water
Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Assn. reported in (2006)
11 SCC 731, the limitations of the writ of quo warranto were
elaborated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court has held as under:
“49. […] The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo
warranto is a limited one which can only be issued when the
appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.
[…]
6

2026:JHHC:32271
51 . It is settled law by a catena of decisions that the court cannot sit
in judgment over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of the
person to be appointed so long as the person chosen possesses the
prescribed qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment.
This Court in R.K. Jain v. Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC 119] was
pleased to hold that the evaluation of the comparative merits of the
candidates would not be gone into a public interest litigation and only
in a proceeding initiated by an aggrieved person, may it be open to
be considered. It was also held that in service jurisprudence it is
settled law that it is for the aggrieved person, that is, the non-
appointee to assail the legality or correctness of the action and that
a third party has no locus standi to canvass the legality or
correctness of the action. Further, it was declared that public law
declaration would only be made at the behest of a public-spirited
person coming before the court as a petitioner…”
(emphasis supplied)
14. In Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha versus
Dhobei Sahoo, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 161 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held:
“21. […] From the aforesaid exposition of law it is clear as
noonday that the jurisdiction of the High Court while issuing a
writ of quo warranto is a limited one and can only be issued
when the person holding the public office lacks the eligibility
criteria or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory
rules. That apart, the concept of locus standi which is strictly
applicable to service jurisprudence for the purpose of
canvassing the legality or correctness of the action should not
be allowed to have any entry, for such allowance is likely to
exceed the limits of quo warranto which is impermissible. The
basic purpose of a writ of quo warranto is to confer jurisdiction
on the constitutional courts to see that a public office is not held
by usurper without any legal authority.
50. It is a well-known principle that the employer can ask an
officer to remain in charge of another office till the said post is
filled up. It is within the permissible authority of the employer.
Under the Scheme the Chairman was not getting any
remuneration. He was only getting sitting fees. Looking at his
ability and efficiency the Commission thought it appropriate that
he should be given the charge of CEO and accordingly an
honorarium was fixed. Honorarium was not equivalent to the
salary. The High Court has erroneously opined that it was an
appointment. The fifth respondent was not getting two sets of
salary. Thus analysed, we have no hesitation that the reasons
ascribed by the High Court to quash the arrangement are
unacceptable and, accordingly, the decision on that score
deserves to be lancinated and we so do. ”
(emphasis supplied)
15. From the aforesaid judgments, the principles that
emerge are these. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo-
7

2026:JHHC:32271
warranto is limited. The writ issues only where (i) the office in
question is a public office, and (ii) it is held by a person without
legal authority i.e. either the holder lacks the prescribed
eligibility or the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.
16. In the present case, from the documents available on
record and the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the
private respondents have the eligibility criteria in terms of the
Rules. The qualifications have been mentioned at paragraph-7
of the affidavit filed by the private respondents. The petitioner
also could not demonstrate the fact that the petitioner lacks
the eligibility criteria for the post.
17. The petitioner has not placed any material to show
that any of the private respondents does not possesses the
qualifications. In the absence of any such material, the
foundational requirement for a writ of quo-warranto, namely
that the private respondents lack the eligibility criteria, is not
established.

18. So long as the incumbent possesses the prescribed
qualifications and is otherwise eligible, the Court cannot not
sit in judgment over the choice made by the State Government.
An arrangement under which the employer asks an eligible
person to hold charge of a post until it is regularly filled, is
within the employers’ permissible authority.
8

2026:JHHC:32271
19. It was also contended by the petitioner that the cadre
rules contemplate appointment only through the modes
prescribed therein, and that a person who is not a member of
the cadre, cannot discharge the functions of the posts.
20. The private respondents have not been appointed to
the cadre; nor do they claim any right to be absorbed in it. They
have been deputed, on the basis of the policy decision of the
State, to discharge the duties of the post only until regular
recruitment is completed.
The State Government has stated that the sanctioned
strength has been enhanced to 70 and that 50 posts have
already been filled through regular recruitment, which shows
that the deputation is a stop gap measure and not a substitute
for regular recruitment.
21. As held in Dhobei Sahoo (supra) , the employer may ask
an eligible officer to remain in charge of a post until it is filled.
Such an arrangement, made in favour of persons who possess
the qualifications prescribed for the posts, cannot be described
as usurpation of public office.
22. The order dated 29.01.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.
4233 of 2013 is a direction to the State Government to ensure
that in future, a person who is not competent to hold the post
of MVI is not deputed to that post. The direction does not
prohibit deputation as such. It prohibits only the deputation of
9

2026:JHHC:32271
person who are not competent to hold the post. Since, the
private respondents have been found to possess the prescribed
qualifications, their deputation is consistent with the order
and not in breach with the order passed by the Court.
23. The petitioner has also has not disclosed any
credentials in the writ petition for seeking a writ of mandamus.
The petitioner has failed to disclose any legal vested right for
seeking a writ of mandamus.
24. For the reasons recorded above, this court finds that
there is no ground for seeking a writ of quo-warranto by the
petitioner as the respondent No.4 is a regularly appointed MVI,
and the respondent No.5 to 10 possess the prescribed
qualifications and are discharging the duties of MVI on
deputation as stop gap arrangement.
25. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Pending
I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:04/11/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R
Uploaded
5.11.2026




10