Valmiki J. Mehta, J (Oral):

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the association of Executives of the respondent no.5-company M/s Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. The petitioner Executives’ Association seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto to question the contractual appointment period (or till further orders) of the respondent no.1, Mr. M. K. Singh as a Director (Project Management) of the respondent no.5-company in terms of the order of the respondent no.5-company dated 21.7.2011. This order dated 21.7.2011 reads as under:-

“In exercise of the powers conferred to him under Article 10 of the Articles of Association of M/s Bridge & Roof Company (India) Limited (B&R), Kolkata the President is pleased to appoint Sh. M.K. Singh, CMD, Chairman and Managing Director, Richardson & Cruddas Ltd (R&C) to the post of Director (Project Management), Bridge & Roof Company (India) Limited (B&R) in Schedule ‘C’ scale of pay of Rs.65000-75000 (revised) for a period of five years from the date of assumption of the charge or until further orders, whichever event takes place earlier.

Detailed terms & conditions of appointment will follow.

Sd/-

(Ajay Kumar)

Under Secretary to the Govt. of India

Phone 23061531”

(underlining added)

2. At the commencement of hearing, on a specific query which is put to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it is conceded that the only relief which is claimed in the present writ petition is a writ in the nature of quo warranto. No other relief is sought on behalf of the petitioner except the relief in the nature of a writ, order or direction of quo warranto.

3. Following are the settled legal propositions so far as a writ of quo warranto is concerned in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court which are quoted below:-

(i) In service matters if an appointment of a person is challenged not by seeking the writ of certiorari but seeking a writ, order etc of quo warranto, locus of the petitioner is not to be examined because the petitioner is only a relator to the Court with respect to alleged usurpation of a public office by a person.

(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto is different than the writ, order or direction sought in the nature of certiorari questioning an appointment, and in the latter case only the affected persons who question the appointment of a person have a right to approach the Court i.e locus of the petitioners is in issue unlike a petition seeking a writ etc in the nature of quo warranto.

(iii) A petition seeking a writ etc of a quo warranto lies only against an appointment made which is in violation of a statutory provision or a statutory rule. A writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto cannot be sought merely on account of violation of any circular or guideline or direction i.e where the appointment is not alleged to be in violation of a statutory provision.

(iv) Writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto can lie either against a public office or when through the office in question, appointment to which is challenged, a sovereign function is performed.

(v) The post in question has to be a public post having some amount of permanency and an appointment made which is for a contractual period or until further orders is not a public post.

(vi) If an appointment is challenged of a person to a public post, if in that writ petition, an order or a direction in the nature of quo warranto is not sought, the writ petition to challenge the appointment will have to be in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation wherein petitioners will seek a writ of declaration etc to question the appointment to a public post.

(vii) Mere suitability of a person for appointment to a post cannot be the subject matter of a petition seeking writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto.

4. In the judgment in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees