ORDER : Sameer Jain, J. 1. The instant petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers, as reproduced herein-under:- “(i) Please to call for the record and allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner. (ii) Quash and set aside the order dated 17.02.2024 of giving charge to Respondent No. 4 as Commissioner of Nagar Parishad, Dausa. (iii) Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R.B. Mathur, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Dausa, which is a Nagar Parishad (Municipal Corporation). The petitioner successfully contested the election of Parshad from Ward No. 55, and is presently a returning candidate for the said seat. 3. Learned counsel submitted that Smt. Monika Soni i.e. respondent no.4, who admittedly is an Executive Officer-III, was appointed as the Secretary of Nagar Parishad, Dausa vide order dated 15.02.2024, issued by the Department of Local Self Government i.e. respondent no.2. 4. At this stage, Mr. Mathur submitted that the cause and controversy in the instant matter arose when vide order dated 17.02.2024, as issued by the respondent no.2, Smt. Monika Soni i.e. respondent no.4, was bestowed with the additional charge of Commissioner-Nagar Parishad Dausa, de hors the provisions of Rajasthan Municipal Service (Administrative and Technical) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter, Rules of 1963). 5. In this background, being aggrieved with the bestowing of an additional charge of Commissioner upon the said private respondent no.4, the petitioner preferred a representation before the respondents, but no due heed was paid to the same. 6. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 17.02.2024 whereby the respondent no.2 has given an additional charge of Commissioner to Smt. Monika Soni i.e. respondent no.4, on the following grounds:- 6.1 That the respondent no.4 does not have the requisite qualifications to hold the post of Commissioner, as prescribed by the Rules of 1963 and the corresponding notification dated 30.01.2018, issued by the Department of Local Self Government i.e. respondent no.2 itself. 6.2 That holding the charge of Commissioner in addition to that of Secretary is against the spirit of Articles 14, 16 and 243B of the Constitution of India. 6.2 That holding the charge of Commissioner in addition to that of Secretary is against the spirit of Articles 14, 16 and 243B of the Constitution of India. 6.3 That as per the Rules of 1963 and the corresponding notification dated 30.01.2018, the post of Commissioner can only be fulfilled by way of promotion on the basis of merit. Moreover, only those officers who are Executive Officer-II can be promoted on the said post of Commissioner, subject to them possessing minimum three years of experience on said post. 6.4 That in the facts of the present case, Smt. Monika Soni i.e. private respondent no.4, is neither an Executive Officer-II and nor does she possess an experience of five years as Secretary of Municipal Council. Therefore, her appointment on the post of Commissioner is de hors the statutory Rules of 1963. “3. In considered opinion of this Court, handling over charge of a Municipality to a parson unqualified to hold such post is not only contrary to rights/interest of petitioners but also against the better administration of Municipalities. 4. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable on 05.04.2021. 5. Meanwhile, the State shall stand restrained from posting or passing any further order of giving charge of Commissioner Municipality to any person, who is not a Commissioner as per Rajasthan Municipal Service (Administrative & Technical) Rules, 1963. 6. In case of emergent situation, if handing over charge to a person other than Commissioner is inevitable, the same shall be done, however, with a stipulation that it would not continue beyond a period of 15 days.” 6.5 That the post of Commissioner- Nagar Parishad warrants efficiency in office and the said standard of efficiency cannot be met by an individual who does not hold the requisite qualifications to hold said office and/or post. 6.6 That by bestowing the additional charge of Commissioner upon an unqualified individual, the functioning of the entire Parishad would suffer and inadvertently, the public would suffer at large. 7. In support of the arguments advanced, Mr. R.B. Mathur relied upon the dictum of this Court as enunciated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2185/2021 titled as Shrawan Ram and Ors. 7. In support of the arguments advanced, Mr. R.B. Mathur relied upon the dictum of this Court as enunciated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2185/2021 titled as Shrawan Ram and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, vide order dated 15.02.2021, whereby the Court strongly criticized and put to hault the action of the State qua the appointment of unqualified persons on the post of Commissioner with the only caveat that the same would be permissible only on a temporary basis for an upper period of 15 days. Identically, reliance was also placed upon S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17233/2023 titled as Smt. Mamta Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein vide order dated 20.10.2023, this Court granted stay in favour of the identically placed petitioner. 8. Furthermore, in order to establish the locus standi of the petitioner and in support of the maintainability of the instant petition, learned counsel placed reliance upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex and also the Division Bench of this Court as enunciated in Rajesh Awasthi vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal reported in (2013) 1 SCC 501 and Officer KV Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2023) 4 WLC 77. Thus, placing reliance upon the aforesaid, it was prayed that the instant petition be allowed and the order dated 17.02.2024 be quashed and set aside. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State and also, private respondent no.4, in tandem, have raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant petition. It was submitted that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to file the present petition as the petitioner is not an aggrieved party. Moreover, it was argued that the present petition is filed seeking a writ in the nature of quo warranto whereas the same is filed with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 17.02.2024, which is in the nature of mandamus. Furthermore, learned counsel also averred that the present petition is not maintainable as the Election Commission is not impleaded as a necessary party, especially when the model code of conduct is in operation on account of the Lok Sabha elections. 10. On merits, learned counsel for the respondents, in support of the conferment of the additional charge of Commissioner, argued that as on date, within the State of Rajasthan there are 47 sanctioned posts of Commissioner/Dy. Commissioners (Rajasthan Municipal Services) and 15 posts of Commissioner/Dy. 10. On merits, learned counsel for the respondents, in support of the conferment of the additional charge of Commissioner, argued that as on date, within the State of Rajasthan there are 47 sanctioned posts of Commissioner/Dy. Commissioners (Rajasthan Municipal Services) and 15 posts of Commissioner/Dy. Commissioners (Rajasthan Administrative Services), out of which 7 posts are lying vacant. Therefore, looking to the shortage of the Commissioners/Addl. Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner/Executive Officer or the posts being vacant, the officers working the same cadre/category to that of Commissioners are either being given postings or additional charges of Commissioner so that no work can be halted and effective implementation and monitoring of the State schemes can be done for the public at large. 11. Therefore, looking to the shortage of Commissioners and on account of administrative exigencies, respondent no.2 addressed a departmental communication dated 13.02.2024 to the Department of Personnel whereby the approval was sought for issuing posting orders qua the respondent no.4, on the additional charge of Commissioner-Nagar Parishad Dausa, especially looking to the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections. 12. As a result, it was argued that the conferment of the additional charge of Commissioner upon respondent no.4 is just and proper, especially looking to the noted administrative exigencies i.e. shortage of Commissioners and also, the impending work in connection with the Lok Sabha Elections 2024. Therefore, no interference with the order dated 17.02.2024 is warranted. 13. In support of the arguments advanced, reliance was placed upon the dictum enunciated in M/s Fertilizer Dharmarth Trust vs. Institute of Advance Studies in Education reported in 2021 0 Supreme (Raj.) 415, Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar (Regd.) Sindri and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1981) 0 AIR (SC) 344, D. Nagraj vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (1977) 0 AIR(SC) 876 and S.T. Muthuswami vs. K Natarajan and Ors. reported in (1988) 0 AIR (SC) 616. 14. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the present petition and perused through the judgments cited at Bar. 15. Concisely noted, the cause and controversy before this Court can be defined by the challenge raised against the order dated 17.02.2024, whereby the Department of Local Self Government conferred the private respondent no.4 i.e. Smt. Monika Soni, with the additional charge of Commissioner-Nagar Parishad Dausa. 16. 15. Concisely noted, the cause and controversy before this Court can be defined by the challenge raised against the order dated 17.02.2024, whereby the Department of Local Self Government conferred the private respondent no.4 i.e. Smt. Monika Soni, with the additional charge of Commissioner-Nagar Parishad Dausa. 16. Therefore, at this nascent stage of addressing the rival contentions, it is clarified that no challenge is raised before this Court with regards to the very appointment of the private respondent no.4 i.e. Smt. Monika Soni as Secretary-Nagar Parishad Dausa vide order dated 15.02.2024. Rather, the scope of challenge is merely limited to the subsequent conferment of additional charge of Commissioner vide order dated 17.02.2024. 17. Prior to adverting to the adjudication on merits, this Court deems it appropriate to categorically address the twofold preliminary objections raised by the counsel for the respondents regarding the maintainability of the instant petition. The primary objection so raised, pertained to the petitioner purportedly lacking the locus standi to file the present petition as a non-aggrieved party seeking a writ of quo warranto, whereas the secondary objection dealt with the non-impleadment of the Election Commission as a necessary party, despite the model code of conduct being in currency/operation. 18. With regards to the primary objection so raised, reliance can be placed upon the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court as enunciated in Officer KV Agarwal (Supra) wherein it was categorically held that a writ of quo warranto can well be maintained by a citizen, being a ‘relater’ of the perceived injustice/legal derailment. The relevant extract of the judgment rendered in Officer KV Agarwal (Supra) is reproduced herein-under:- “13. In View of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the settled legal position which emerges is that though PIL in service matters would not be maintainable, a writ of quo warranto could well be maintained by a citizen. Thus, a citizen can claim issuance of writ of quo warranto and he stands in the position of a relater. He need not have any special interest or personal interest. The real test is to see whether the person holding the public office is authorised to hold the same as per law and in such matters, delay and laches does not constitute any impediment to deal with the lis on the merits. He need not have any special interest or personal interest. The real test is to see whether the person holding the public office is authorised to hold the same as per law and in such matters, delay and laches does not constitute any impediment to deal with the lis on the merits. It has also been held that the judicial determination can be confined to the integrity of the decision making process in terms of statutory provisions. 31. From the aforesaid pronouncements it is graphically clear that a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto and he stands in the position of a relater. He need not have any special interest or personal interest. The real test is to see whether the person holding the office is authorised to hold the same as per law. Delay and laches do not constitute any impediment to deal with the lis on merits and it has been so stated in Kashinath G. Jalmi v. Speaker (1993) 2 SCC 703 .” 19. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner is a resident of Dausa, who also happens to be the duly elected Parshad of the said area, automatically qualifies the petitioner to be a ‘relater’ who may claim the issuance of a writ of quo warranto against a perceived injustice/legal derailment, in the larger public interest, without having any special/personal interest. 20. As a result, being a bonafide resident of Dausa, the petitioner is well within their rights to seek a writ of quo warranto in order to ascertain whether the respondent no.4 i.e. Smt. Monika Soni is authorized to hold the public office as Commissioner, especially looking to their qualifications. The implications of an irregular appointment, insofar as the same goes beyond the prescribed statutory qualifications, are far reaching and wide. Therefore, the petitioner possesses due locus standi to file the present petition seeking a writ of quo warranto. 21. The implications of an irregular appointment, insofar as the same goes beyond the prescribed statutory qualifications, are far reaching and wide. Therefore, the petitioner possesses due locus standi to file the present petition seeking a writ of quo warranto. 21. Whereas, the secondary objection so raised, regarding the non-impleadment of Election Commission as a necessary party especially in light of the operation of the model code of conduct, cannot be countenanced as well, for the following reasons:- 21.1 That the limited issue before this Court pertains to adjudication upon whether or not the private respondent no.4 i.e. Smt. Monika Soni, possesses the requisite qualification to be conferred with the additional charge of Commissioner-Nagar Parishad, as per the statutory Rules of 1963, which are duly in force as on date. Therefore, for said determination of statutory eligibility, the impleadment of the Election Commission as a necessary party is not warranted. 21.2 That by way of the present petition, a challenge is raised against the conferment of an additional charge of Commissioner upon the private respondent no.4 vide order dated 17.02.2024. Whereas, the model code of conduct came into force only subsequent to the passing of the said order i.e. on 16.03.2024. Therefore, as the cause of action accrued prior to March 2024, no impleadment of the Election Commission is warranted. 22. Resultantly, for the reasons noted above, the preliminary objections so raised by the respondents are turned down and the lis before this Court is taken up for adjudication on merits. 23. On merits, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant petition, for the following reasons, as noted herein-under:-23.1 That it is an admitted fact that the private respondent no.4 i.e. Smt. Monika Soni is an Executive Officer Class-III. 23.2 That as per the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1963, which came to be amended by way of notification dated 30.01.2018, issued under Section 337 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 2009, it is made abundantly clear that the post of Commissioner can only be fulfilled by way of promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit. Moreover, only those officers who are Executive Officer Class II can be promoted on the said post of Commissioner, subject to them possessing minimum three years of experience. For ready reference, the amended schedule of the Rules of 1963 is reproduced herein-under:- RAJASTHAN MUNICIPAL SERVICE RULES 1963 Sr. Moreover, only those officers who are Executive Officer Class II can be promoted on the said post of Commissioner, subject to them possessing minimum three years of experience. For ready reference, the amended schedule of the Rules of 1963 is reproduced herein-under:- RAJASTHAN MUNICIPAL SERVICE RULES 1963 Sr. No. Category with designation and gradation Source of recruitment Post and Quota from which appointment by promotion is to be made Minimum Experience required for promotion Qualification for direct recruitment Remarks 1A. Commissioner 100% by promotion on the basis of Seniority cum Merit Executive Officer Class-IInd Three Years experience 2. Executive Officer Class-II 100% by promotion on the basis of Seniority cum Merit Executive Officer Class-III 66 2/3% and Revenue Officer Grade-Ist 33 1/3% (In the ratio of 2:1 from Executive Officer Class-III and Revenue Officer Grade-I respectively) Three Years experience First two post shall be filled by promotion from Executive Officer Class-III and Third post shall be filled by promotion from Revenue Officer Grade-I and thereafter this cycle shall be repeated. 23.3 That in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the private respondent no.4 does not possess the requisite qualification to be conferred the additional charge of Commissioner, for the reason that admittedly, Smt. Monika Soni is an Executive Officer Class III, whereas the Rules of 1963 warrant the Commissioner to be appointed by way of seniority cum promotion from the post of Executive Officer Class-II only. 23.4 That resultantly, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondents regarding the said additional charge of Commissioner being bestowed upon the private respondent no.4 on account of administrative exigencies such as the forthcoming elections cannot be countenanced especially for the reason that the said appointment is void ab initio, being contrary to the established statutory Rules. Moreover, the mere reason of the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections could not qualify a person to hold an office and/or post, for which they do not hold the qualifications prescribed by law. 23.5 That by way of the present petition, the candidature and nature of service of private respondent no.4 i.e. Smt. Monika Soni is not under challenge. Rather, a challenge is raised merely against competence of the said private respondent for being conferred with the additional charge of Commissioner-Nagar Parishad Dausa, on the ground that the private respondent’s cadre does not fulfill the statutory requirements for appointment on the said post. Rather, a challenge is raised merely against competence of the said private respondent for being conferred with the additional charge of Commissioner-Nagar Parishad Dausa, on the ground that the private respondent’s cadre does not fulfill the statutory requirements for appointment on the said post. 23.6 That the post of Commissioner- Nagar Parishad warrants efficiency in office and the said standard of efficiency cannot be met by an individual who does not hold the requisite qualifications to hold said office and/or post. As a result, by bestowing the additional charge of Commissioner upon an unqualified individual, the functioning of the entire Parishad would suffer and inadvertently, the public would be prejudiced at large. 23.7 That under the guise of meeting out administrative exigencies, an incompetent officer as per the Rules of 1963, could not be permitted to assume the additional charge of Commissioner-Nagar Parishad Dausa. 24. As a result, in cumulative light of the foregoing observations, this Court while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, deems it appropriate to allow the instant petition and consequently, quash and set aside the order dated 17.02.2024 whereby private respondent no.4 i.e. Smt. Monika Soni was bestowed with the additional charge of Commissioner-Nagar Parishad Dausa. 25. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.