( 1 ) THIS petition is filed seeking for a direction in the nature of quo warranto ousting the second respondent from the post of Drug controller after quashing the notification Annexure-A, dated 12-6-2004.

( 2 ) PETITIONER states that the second respondent has been appointed in terms of Annexure-A notification dated 12-6-2003. According to petition averments, the second respondent is ineligible to be appointed as a Drug controller as he does not have the minimum qualification to hold the post of Drug Controller as specified under Rule 50-A of the Drugs and cosmetics Rules, 1945.

( 3 ) NOTICE was issued and respondents have entered appearance. Respondent states that in the light of the proceedings initiated by lokayuktha, the Drugs Control Department has to necessarily appoint respondent 2 in the larger public interest. According to objection statement, there was no suitable person to be promoted to the post of drug Controller from the cadre of Additional Drugs Controller in view of the various proceedings and that therefore the Government thought it fit to appoint the second respondent as Drug Controller. According to the respondents, the Government appointed on deputation the second respondent, a medical doctor and an Indian Police Service Officer of the karnataka Cadre with administrative capacity with a post-graduate diploma in public policy and management from IIM, Bangalore with specialisation in Health Policy. Respondents say that he has the requisite qualification in terms of Rule 50-A of the Rules. The respondents further submit that the second respondent is a graduate in medicine from the University of Calicut and while doing MBBS he had studied both Pharmacology and Microbiology. After passing MBBS in 1989, he worked in the Institute of Maternity and Child Health, Calicut medical College and Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi as an intern and as a Junior Resident during the period 1990 to 1992. He has also enforced various provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 among other legislative enactments and that therefore he has both qualification and eligibility in terms of Rule 50-A of the Rules. They support Annexure-A.

( 4 ) SRI Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner took me though the material on record to contend that the writ of quo warranto can be issued at the instance of any person and it is not confined to a particular individual. He says that writ of quo warranto is only a prayer to oust a person holding a post to which he is otherwise not entitled to. Learned Counsel contends that the second respondent's appointment is contrary to Rule 50-A and that therefore he has to be ousted from the post. Learned Counsel says that a reading of rule 50-A would show that appointment of respondent 2 lacks statutory requirements in terms of the Rules. He relies on various judgments in support of his contentions. Per contra, learned Advocate General would say that the second respondent has the necessary qualification in terms of the rules and that his appointment need not be ousted at this stage. His argument is that even otherwise, this Court may allow him to continue for three more months and the matter would be considered in the meanwhile.

( 5 ) MATTER was reserved for judgment and thereafter the learned counsel for the respondent wanted to argue further in support of his submission. Matter is listed today, learned Government Advocate argues the case further. He invites my attention once again to the writ averments and the objections statement to contend that the second respondent fulfills all statutory requirements. According to him, Rule 50-A is fully complied with in the case on hand. His further argument is that petitioner has no locus to maintain this petition. He says that petitioner has no interest in the matter. His further argument is that the word experience has to be liberally interpreted in the light of the second respondent exercising his powers for implementat