JUDGMENT :

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of quo warranto for removal of the respondent no. 5 from the post of Deputy Superintendent, Sub-Division Hospital, Mohania on the ground that as per the government police decision any posting in the home district is barred but nonetheless the respondent no. 5, whose home district is Kaimur, has been posted at Mohania illegally. The petitioner is a social worker, as stated in paragraph-3 of the writ petition and as such has filed the present writ petition in public interest to set aside the said irregularity. The petitioner is resident of village Tendua under the district of Rohtas at Sasaram.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition at the behest of the petitioner herein on the ground that petitions in public interest are not entertainable in service matters and moreover the petitioner has no locus standi to prefer the instant writ petition.

3. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, by relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which are being discussed herein-below that the present writ petition is fully maintainable. The first judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the one reported in The University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another, AIR 1965 SC 491 paragraph nos. 6 and 7 whereof are reproduced herein-below:-

“6. The judgment of the High Court does not indicate that the attention of the High Court was drawn to the technical nature of the writ of quo warranto which was claimed by the respondent in the present proceedings, and the conditions which had to be satisfied before a writ could issue in such proceedings.

7. As Halsbury has observed:

An information in the nature of a quo warranto took the place of the obsolete writ of quo warranto which lay against a person who claimed or usurped an office, franchise, or liberty, to enquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order that the right to the office or franchise might be determined. 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 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 recognised 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.”

4. It is apparent from the aforesaid judgment that the basis for issuance of a writ of quo warranto is to ascertain as to whether the appointment of the alleged usurper to a public office has been made in accordance with law or no