Introduction:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Anuradha Gupta v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, WP No. 9096 of 2024, raised serious concerns regarding the deputation of a veterinary doctor as a Health Officer in Gwalior Municipal Corporation, despite the position requiring an MBBS degree. Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia strongly criticized the state authorities, directing them to clarify how they justified appointing a veterinary doctor against a non-existent post. The Court also ordered the Municipal Corporation to furnish details of officers working on deputation, the duration of their tenure, and the reasons why regular appointments had not been made. The petitioner, Dr. (Mrs.) Anuradha Gupta, challenged the posting of Respondent No.6, a veterinary doctor, arguing that the appointment violated service rules since the minimum qualification for the position was an MBBS degree. The respondents included the Principal Secretary of, the Administration Urban & Development Department; Principal Secretary of, the Department of Veterinary Services & Animal Husbandry; Commissioner of, the Administration Urban & Development Department; Director, of Veterinary Services & Animal Husbandry; and Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. The petition sought a writ of quo warranto, questioning the authority under which the veterinary doctor was appointed as a Health Officer. The Court expressed shock over how the authorities filed their responses and questioned their capacity to sign affidavits. The hearing revealed that 62 officers and employees had been posted in Gwalior Municipal Corporation on deputation, raising concerns over administrative irregularities. The Court had already issued an interim order on March 13, 2024, directing the veterinary doctor to stop functioning as a Health Officer. On March 19, 2024, the Court further scrutinized the conduct of the authorities involved and demanded a detailed explanation, listing the matter for further hearing on April 3, 2024.

Arguments:

The petitioner, Dr. (Mrs.) Anuradha Gupta contended that the deputation of Respondent No.6 violated recruitment and service rules. She argued that there was no such post as “Health Officer” in the Municipal Corporation and that the post had been re-designated as Chief Sanitary Officer. This post was to be filled through promotion from the Sanitary Officer cadre, which, in turn, was filled through promotion from the Assistant Sanitary Officer position. The minimum qualification for an Assistant Sanitary Officer was an MBBS degree, making Respondent No.6 ineligible for the post. The petitioner further submitted that Respondent No.6 was a veterinary doctor and had no qualifications related to human healthcare. Moreover, the corporation’s response indicated that the appointment was made by the state government, and the Municipal Corporation had merely provided a No Objection Certificate (NOC). This, the petitioner claimed, reflected serious administrative lapses, as government authorities cannot bypass statutory recruitment norms. The petitioner also highlighted that the city was witnessing a rise in dog bite incidents, further raising questions on how a veterinary doctor was deemed fit for a role involving human health management. She urged the Court to intervene and quash the appointment to prevent further illegal postings and maintain transparency in public administration.

The state government, represented by five respondents, defended the deputation process, arguing that it was done by administrative discretion. The Commissioner, Urban Administration and Housing Department submitted that the decision to appoint Respondent No.6 was taken at the behest of the Department of Urban Administration and Development. The department had sought details regarding vacancies and pay scales before posting Respondent No.6 as a Health Officer. The state authorities maintained that the Municipal Corporation had granted an NOC for the appointment, which implied its consent to the deputation. The respondents also contended that government service often involves temporary deputations based on administrative necessity, and the decision was made in good faith. However, they failed to explain how a veterinary doctor was posted to a position requiring an MBBS degree or why a non-existent post was created. Furthermore, the Court took issue with the affidavits filed by the respondents, as they were unclear about the authority under which they were signed. Respondents No.2 and No.4, namely the Principal Secretary of the Department of Veterinary Services & Animal Husbandry and the Director of Veterinary Services & Animal Husbandry, attempted to shift the entire responsibility onto the state government, failing to provide a satisfactory justification for the appointment.

Judgement:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court found the entire process deeply flawed and raised multiple concerns over the state’s administrative conduct. Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed that Respondent No.6 had been appointed to a non-existing post, despite lacking the required MBBS qualification. The Court also took cognizance of the larger issue of deputations within the Municipal Corporation, noting that 62 officers and employees had been posted on deputation without proper justification. It questioned why steps had not been taken to make regular appointments instead of relying on deputation. The Court strongly criticized how the affidavits were filed by state authorities, questioning the legitimacy of their signatures and the respondents’ attempts to shift responsibility. It directed the Principal Secretary of Administration Urban & Development Department and the Commissioner of Urban Administration and Housing Department to submit a detailed explanation regarding the entire deputation process. The Court sought clarity on why Respondent No.6 was chosen for the post, the official records justifying his selection, and the reasons why the position was not filled through regular means. It also ordered the respondents to explain why employees on deputation were not being repatriated to their parent departments. The Court reiterated that administrative actions must align with legal provisions and service rules and warned against arbitrary postings that undermine the integrity of governance. The next hearing is scheduled for April 3, 2024, with strict directives for the respondents to provide a comprehensive response.